Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

METHODIST CHURCH BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next at Seven o'clock.

COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next at Seven o'clock.

EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL EAST KILBRIDE DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Dairy Products (Surpluses)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made to reduce the structural surplus in dairy products in the EEC.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): During the Community Price Review the price increases for milk were set at levels which, taken with the agri-monetary changes, result in no increase in prices to producers in real terms over a large part of the Community. However, owing to favourable production conditions, milk production in the Community is running at a higher level than last year. The Commission has been instructed to submit proposals aimed at bringing the market into better balance.

Mr. Shepherd: Does the Minister agree that the Commission has left matters rather late in view of the supply situation for milk this summer? Does he agree that there will be more skimmed milk powder than the skimmed milk powder incorporation scheme will remove from the surplus? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to support the motion of censure on this subject at the European Parliament?

Mr. Bishop: The Council regulations provide for the scheme of import deposits to end on 31st October and also, if a satisfactory reduction in stocks is not achieved by that date, that the period of the scheme may be extended. In regard to surpluses generally, the hon. Gentleman may know that stemming from negotiations which ended in March on the skimmed milk powder scheme, which was part of a package, the Council has asked the Commission to submit proposals, to take effect from the beginning of the 1977–78 milk year, for milk producers to contribute to the financing of any surpluses. My right hon. Friend has stressed that there should be more producer responsibility for surpluses.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Members who tabled that motion in the European Parliament are the same hon. Members as voted for increased agriculture prices in the Community and that it ill becomes them to challenge the Commission on a policy which they did their best to support? Will my hon. Friend note the recent report of Which? which blames the Common Market for excessive food prices being paid by consumers in this country? Does he recognise that, whether we on this side are pro-or anti-Europe, we are very much opposed to a policy which makes that imposition on consumers?

Mr. Bishop: I take note of what my hon. Friend says. He and other hon. Members will appreciate that surpluses are not a feature of the Community alone. New Zealand, Australia and other places have the same problem. What matters is food supply security, and that is the basis of our policy.

Mr. Powell: Does the Minister understand that rigged prices always lag behind the real world and that no way of preventing this ever has been discovered or ever will be?

Mr. Bishop: That comment relates to other places as well as to the Community.

Mr. Jay: Regardless of whether surpluses are a feature of the Community, can my hon. Friend confirm the figure he has given me that what is politely called the structural surplus in dairy products has cost EEC taxpayers more than £800 million this year?

Mr. Bishop: I hope my right hon. Friend will appreciate that shortages also cost consumers a great deal. Our problem is to ensure that supply and demand are kept in balance.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the Minister agree that there will be a surplus of about 1·5 million tons of dried milk and that this is mainly due to the disastrous decision of himself and his colleagues not to accept the Commission's proposals to reduce this structural amount of milk production?

Mr. Bishop: If the hon. Gentleman is fair, he will admit that there is no logic in the fact that he and his hon. Friends

applauded the package which my right hon. Friend brought back from Brussels and then started to criticise certain parts of it. If my right hon. Friend had not accepted the whole package, he would rightly have been criticised for not taking the best bargain we could have had for some time.

Sugar Quotas

Mr. Spearing: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek a readjustment of the Lomé Agreement to enable ACP sugar producers to reallocate raw sugar quotas among themselves without prejudice to the total quota of 1·3 million tons.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): The ACP sugar producers themselves agreed with the Community the provisions of the Lomé Convention sugar protocol on reallocation of shortfalls. They also agreed that no change would be made to that protocol for at least five years. I shall support the reallocation of any shortfalls occuring by 30th June this year, within the existing terms of the protocol.

Mr. Spearing: Yes, but does not my right hon. Friend agree that the existing terms of the protocol are not good enough in that the reallocation cannot take place in the current year? As over 400,000 tons of the 1·3 million tons of raw sugar comes from Mauritius, does my right hon. Friend agree that if that island were to suffer a natural disaster our cane refiners would be short of supplies? After the five years that my right hon. Friend has mentioned, does he agree that the matter must be looked at again?

Mr. Peart: I accept that. That is what was agreed by the producers. I am well aware of the need to maintain throughput at our cane refineries. I specifically dealt with Fiji only the other week. It had similar difficulties to those being experienced by Mauritius, but this has always happened, even under the Commonwealth Sugar agreement.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was at Luxembourg last week when the Lomé States were meeting? Is he aware that they were agreeable to the proposals that were made? They accepted them with some


slight reluctance as regards price but were extremely agreeable as regards quantity. It was recognised that the agreement was to their advantage and to ours.

Mr. Peart: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. I believe that the Lomé Convention was a good deal for the ACP countries. I think there is recognition of that in the developing world.

Mr. Buchan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement it was possible to get sugar from other Commonwealth sources—for example, Australia? Does he agree that it will not now be possible to get other supplies if the situation goes wrong? Finally, does he agree that the problem is not only that of the ACP producers but of the possible employment situation facing the can refiners in this country?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of the worries and concerns of those who represent constituencies where refining takes place. I have met the trade unions, and I hope to make an announcement very soon. My hon. Friend was a member and supporter of an Administration—

Mr. Spearing: And resigned.

Mr. Peart: Not when Australia was a member of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.

Imports

Mr. Banks: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current level of imported produce compared with the same period last year.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): Imports of food and animal feeding stuffs in April 1976 were 4·8 per cent. higher by value and 3·5 per cent. lower by volume than in April 1975.

Mr. Banks: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not the case, however, that the monitoring of supplies coming into this country from outside the EEC is slow and that publication is often too late to allow action to be taken against distortion of the market? Would not the answer be to activate the reference price

system for products on prevailing wholesale prices related to economic prices for the producers?

Mr. Strang: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is thinking particularly of horticultural products. I do not think that that would be applicable to main agricultural commodities. The reference price system has a rôle to play, and it does so in the context of the Community's arrangements.

Mr. Torney: Will my hon. Friend tell me whether it is a fact that British butter is going into intervention? If that is true, would it not be in the best interests of our country if we were to sell the butter to the housewife instead of importing so much German and French butter and using our vital foreign currency when it is not necessary to do so?

Mr. Strang: That is a big question. It is certainly true that some butter has gone into intervention. The main reason for that is the transitional step. When it is known that there is to be an increase in the price, the Continentals ship butter into this country to take advantage of the increase. That means that there is a temporary surplus. I think that my hon. Friend will support our policy of expanding home production.

Mr. Torney: What is the good of its going into intervention?

Mr. Blaker: Is it not a fact that in the horticultural sector there have recently been substantial imports of tomatoes? Are the Government still making an effort to secure equality of competition between ourselves and the Dutch growers as regards the cost of fuel, or have they given up the attempt?

Mr. Strang: I think the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the guidelines for oil subsidies terminate at the end of this month and that we are opposed to any extension of the guidelines. We should not lose sight of the fact that competition from Holland has been affected by the depreciation of the pound.

Agricultural Output

Mr. David Walder: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the difference last year between the target for agricultural expansion indicated by the Government's White


Paper "Food from Our Own Resources" and the percentage change in production actually achieved.

Mr. Peart: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) on 25th March.

Mr. Walder: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that illuminating response, but I remind him that the Government's White Paper promised a modest increase of 2½ per cent. almost 12 months ago. Is he not aware that the volume of production has fallen by 14 per cent., which is, I think, the largest percentage fall in agricultural production for some time, going back to the Second World War?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman knows only too well—in fact, he has quoted from "Food from Our Own Resources" —that the projections in the White Paper were not, for obvious reasons, a fixed set of production targets. I believe that the price review which we negotiated in Brussels and here with our farmers has restored a measure of confidence in the industry.

Mr. Hardy: Is it not the case that conditions are now set very fair for farming and that we can look for considerable expansion of agricultural production? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the national interest would be served if Conservative Members recognised that and encouraged the increase that we need?

Mr. Peart: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder), who was a junior Minister, knows that I did a good deal for the farmers in the Brussels negotiations.

Mr. Pym: The right hon. Gentleman thinks that production will expand in 1976, and he knows very well that my right hon. and hon. Friends are fully in support of an expansionist policy, but expansion did not happen last year. Now that the pound has fallen so low, is it not vital that every effort should be made to increase the volume of home-grown food even more than the Minister proposed over a year ago?

Mr. Peart: I am anxious to get home production going. In fact, this is happening. However, I cannot forecast, for

example, precise weather conditions. The right hon. Gentleman, as a farmer, must know that better than I do.

Mr. Watt: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is grossly unfair to compare a year such as last year with this year, last year having been a year of panic and this year being a year of super-confidence in the agricultural industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman give further confidence to the agriculture industry by indicating whether he has contingency plans ready should the common agricultural policy collapse during the next year?

Mr. Peart: I think that the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating. People criticise the CAP, but I believe that it has given us some benefits.

Mr. Torney: Let us hope that it collapses soon.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: My right hon. Friend has not yet said what we are going to do about the butter mountain which is now rearing its ugly head as a result of intervention buying.

Mr. Peart: There is no mountain of butter in this country.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: The right hon. Gentleman took 25 or 26 words in not answering the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). Would it not have been much more satisfactory if he had given a direct answer to the Question which required only two figures?

Mr. Peart: I gave an answer to the hon. Member for Canterbury. I do not want to repeat all my answers, even though they are very good answers.

Cheese

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much cheese was produced in the United Kingdom in the first quarter of 1975 and 1976.

Mr. Bishop: United Kingdom cheese production in the first quarter of 1976 was 43,000 metric tons. In the same period of 1975 it was 55,700 metric tons.

Mr. Morrison: Is the Minister aware that more cheese, particularly higher-class cheese, could have been produced in the


United Kingdom in the first quarter of this year were it not for the policy of the Milk Marketing Board—and this at a time when cheese is flooding in from overseas? What does the Minister intend to do about it?

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that cheese is in considerable surplus in this country. The area of production is a matter for the producers, and in this the Milk Marketing Board plays its part. The United Kingdom's share of the cheese market has increased from 40 per cent. in 1968 to 67 per cent. in 1975.

Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend say how much British cheese is being exported to Common Market countries? Is he aware that it is impossible to find British cheese in Common Market countries? In most European countries there seems to be a myth that our cheese is appalling. It is the best in the world.

Mr. Bishop: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support, which I hope will continue. As will be seen from the White Paper, we expect greater home production in the future.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Minister use his influence with the Chairman of the House of Commons Catering Committee to ensure that good British Stilton is not priced so high that it is beyond the pockets of most hon. Members?

Mr. Bishop: That is not a matter for me. It is a question of consumer choice.

Mr. Dalyell: Without being inquisitive, may I ask which are the higher-class cheeses?

Mr. Bishop: I am not sure that people always have to work out the economic reason for buying a particular cheese. It is a matter of consumer choice and preference.

Mrs. Renée Short: Would it not help British cheese producers and our balance of payments position if we controlled the import of luxury cheese from France and Italy?

Mr. Bishop: My hon. Friend may think that there is some merit in that suggestion, but the system has to be competitive. If we did that, the danger is that others

would reply in the same way and this would seriously affect our exports.

Food Import Subsidies

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current EEC subsidy on food imports as a percentage of their real cost.

Mr. Peart: The United Kingdom monetary compensatory amount resulting from the difference between the market rate and the representative rate for the £ sterling is now 20·9 per cent. of the Community support price in the United Kingdom for the products affected, except for common wheat, for which it is 28·4 per cent. of the support price.

Sir A. Meyer: Do not those figures indicate that the common agricultural policy is being used by the Government to conceal real increases in the cost of living? Does not the inexorable fall in the value of the pound suggest that the Government are relying ever more on the patience of our European partners to conceal their failure to grapple with inflation?

Mr. Peart: Yes, I am well aware of the problem referred to by the hon. Gentleman. It is true that our partners in the Community are affected. That is why we are all anxious to make sterling strong. As I said, I keep this under review.

Mr. Jay: Is not the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) right, and are not these devices only temporarily disguising from our people the enormous and rising cost to us of the common agricultural policy?

Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend knows that the consumers of this country have benefited considerably. The figures show that we receive more from the Community for the benefit of the consumer than we put in.

Mr. Pym: Is the Minister aware that the value of the EEC subsidy referred to in his reply is equivalent to between 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. on the Retail Price Index? That is a considerable subsidy, much higher than it has ever been. For how long does the Minister think it will be possible for the consumer to enjoy such an enormous EEC subsidy?

Mr. Peart: This is a matter which I shall inevitably have to discuss with the Council of Ministers. I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said. There is no question about it.

Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the subsidies described are on prices which are very high? Is not the position comparable with that of a housewife who has perforce to shop in a supermarket which charges very high prices but in return she gets Green Shield stamps?

Mr. Peart: I hope my hon. Friend appreciates that continuity of supply for the British consumer has been helped considerably by our membership of the Community. In many countries, for example the Soviet Union, production has failed.

Mr. Marten: Does the Minister agree that there is something slightly dishonourable in claiming credit for the difference of 5 per cent. in the Retail Price index because of the level of the green pound? It is a curious argument to claim that the devaluation of sterling benefits the Common Market.

Mr. Peart: I am not using that argument. The hon. Gentleman is getting curiouser and curiouser. He continually attacks the CAP without acknowledging all the gains that we have made.

Fishing Limits

Mr. Luce: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the Government's stated aim for an exclusive fishing zone of 50 miles is an irreducible minimum or a preliminary negotiating position.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on fishing limits.

Mr. Hicks: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new proposals his Department has submitted to both the EEC Council of Ministers and the Commission concerning the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy, with specific reference to the concept of exclusive fishing rights for coastal States.

Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs told the EEC Council of Ministers on 3rd May that the United Kingdom would be ready to consider a variable coastal belt as little as 12 miles or as much as 50 miles in different areas. He emphasised that this was a definitive statement of our needs. Discussions are continuing with our Community colleagues on this important issue.

Mr. Luce: Will the Minister think again on this in view of the entirely changed circumstances since the common fisheries policy was originally devised, notably, the Icelandic settlement and the trend towards 200-mile limits? Will the Minister and the Government make clear that it is essential in the interest of the British fishing industry to have an exclusive 50-mile limit, and will he stick to that?

Mr. Peart: I stand by the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I am well aware of the concern of hon. Members who represent fishing ports. This is a matter for negotiation, but we have stated our position.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Has not the position changed in that when we went into the Common Market we were repeatedly assured that the EEC common fisheries policy would be renegotiated, whereas the EEC Commissioner, Mr. Lardinois, has repeatedly said that there will be no renegotiation of this policy?

Mr. William Hamilton: He has not said that.

Mrs. Ewing: He has said it. It is on the record.

Mr. Hamilton: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) must not continue to interrupt from a sedentary position.

Mrs. Ewing: I congratulate the Minister's colleague who agreed with me that a 12-mile limit was not enough. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a 50-mile limit is an absolute minimum if our fishing ports are to be viable communities?

Mr. Peart: Sometimes a 35-mile limit in a particular fishing area may be adequate. I assure the hon. Lady that we shall have an opportunity of negotiation. I did not negotiate the common fisheries agreement—indeed, I was critical of it. But we face a new situation and there will have to be negotiations.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Treaty would first have to be renegotiated if we demanded a 50-mile limit? Does he accept that there are more ways of opening the gate than by taking it off its hinges, and that variable limits would serve our inshore fishing interests better than the renegotiation of the Treaty for a 50-mile limit?

Mr. Peart: I accept what my hon. Friend says. Being a Member of the European Parliament, he follows this matter with interest. This will have to be negotiated.

Mr. Powell: How can a statement of requirement be definitive when it is contained in a series of proposals which have not yet been disclosed in order to preserve the Government's bargaining position? How can there be a bargaining position about a definitive requirement?

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman loves semantics. I am going to negotiate in my field and the Foreign Secretary will also do so in the Council of Foreign Ministers.

Mr. Pym: Since the meeting in Brussels at which the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was present, that same Minister told the House that 50 miles was the minimum which could be said to meet the requirements of the British fishing industry. Since then there have been further events of a dramatic nature, and the Foreign Secretary was very clear about the urgent need to complete the revised common fisheries policy. The 50-mile limit must be negotiated on that basis. It is fantastic to contemplate anything less than that. When will the Minister make a statement about fishing policy as promised by the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Peart: The Foreign Secretary said that I would make a statement very soon. I cannot say anything more, except that I shall keep the right hon. Member informed through the usual channels. [Interruption.] Well, if the right hon.

Member does not want to use the usual channels I shall contact him and talk to him personally as he is an eminently reasonable man. I cannot go beyond the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us regard it as ludicrous to have the hound's tooth of gunboats and protection vessels rushing in and out of and up and down agreed fishing areas? To revert to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), will he confirm that part of the Government's scheme for immediate help to the fishing industry and for restructuring it will embody the decasualisation of the industry?

Mr. Peart: That has nothing to do with this Question. I have told the House today—and I have repeated the promises which my right hon. Friend gave the Opposition the other day—that this is a matter which we will have to look at.

Mr. James Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the grievous blow suffered by the deep sea fleet on Humberside over the Iceland settlement has changed conditions? If we are talking in terms of converting vessels to come back nearer to shore, we must bargain hard and tough over the common fisheries agreement. We should try for a 100-mile limit and then go back when they push us back.

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend knows what the settlement which was negotiated in Oslo meant. The main problem here is to adjust the industry to the changed situation—I accept that. It is important that we should pursue vigorously the negotiations in Europe.

Mr. Taylor: While accepting that the Minister has inherited a very difficult negotiating position, may I ask whether he accepts that something along the lines of a variable 12-to 50-mile limit would be regarded by the industry as an indefensible sell-out of British interests? Is it a factual position that we cannot get any exclusive limits in Britain unless our partners in Europe agree?

Mr. Peart: This is a matter for negotiation, and I cannot negotiate here in this Chamber. I believe that we must


pursue our negotiations vigorously. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State announced what he thought was the right approach, and I support that.

Mr. Hicks: Does not the Minister agree that the Minister of State's negotiating statement was made before the Icelandic agreement? This agreement changes the whole situation, because it will result in increased pressures on inshore waters around these islands. Therefore, we are justified in going for an exclusive 50-mile coastal belt.

Mr. Peart: I know that the hon. Member has argued this point before. I cannot repeat again what I have already said, but it is the Government's intention to move in an orderly way towards the adoption of a 200-mile limit. We believe that we will have to go to that.

New Zealand Lamb

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is his policy to maintain the present level of lamb imports from New Zealand.

Mr. Bishop: My right hon. Friend and I intend to ensure continuing access to the United Kingdom market for New Zealand lamb exports to meet our requirements.

Mr. Crouch: Am I right in assuming that there is no EEC policy on the import of sheepmeat from non-EEC countries, notwithstanding the movement to a full common external tariff? Will the Minister give a guarantee to New Zealand to maintain imports of sheepmeat at the present level?

Mr. Bishop: There are two points in the question. The first is the supply of sheepmeat generally. The hon. Member is aware of our commitments in the White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources" and the continuing import requirement. With regard to the second point on imports of sheepmeat from New Zealand, we have made it quite clear to the Community that any future arrangements for a Community regime on this matter will have to take account of the needs of the consumer here and the position of our own market.

Mr. Jay: There is no justification whatever for applying the whole hideous apparatus of the common agricultural

policy to mutton and lamb. We in this country are the biggest consumer, producer and importer in the whole of the EEC.

Mr. Bishop: I stress that we must safeguard all our essential interests, including consumer prices.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind that this is one area in which the greatest home expansion can take place to the benefit of the consumer, the producer and the balance of payments with our export of mutton and lamb to the Community? Will he give every encouragement to home production? In Devonshire, part of which I have the privilege of representing, we have set a good example in this field: we have more sheep than head of population.

Mr. Bishop: I hesitate to suggest that there is any relationship between the sheep in the hon. Member's constituency and its representation in the House of Commons. We support his observation about home production of sheepmeat. The other substantial supplier—New Zealand—has been making a decreasing contribution in recent years. Therefore, we want to give all the encouragement we can to increasing home production.

Beef (Intervention Buying)

Mr. Wakinson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tonnes of beef have been sold into intervention in the United Kingdom in 1976.

Mr. Strang: It is provisionally estimated that 12,516 metric tons of beef were taken into intervention in the United Kingdom between 1st January and 28th May 1976.

Mr. Watkinson: Will my hon. Friend accept that these are very depressing figures for everyone connected with the beef-producing industry? The best place for beef is not in intervention but on the housewife's table. The best way to get rid of surpluses is by allowing the price to come down. Will my hon. Friend bring pressure to bear on the EEC and urge it to adopt such a sensible policy?

Mr. Strang: Yes, I agree. We are opposed to intervention. That is why my right hon. Friend has taken steps to reduce massively the level of intervention.

Mr. Cryer: Although my hon. Friend says that he is opposed to intervention, it keeps being done and mountains of one sort or another keep appearing and rearing their hideous heads. In a world in which two-thirds of the people go hungry, that sort of policy is totally obscene. The food produced by the nations of the world should be shared out among the nations of the world and not kept in intervention to satisfy the profit needs of a few French farmers.

Mr. Strang: We are basically in agreement with my hon. Friend, but he must keep this matter in perspective. There is a very small amount of beef in intervention in this country. It represents a small proportion of the total amount of meat in cold storage in the country. There is a big difference between permanent intervention on the scale which takes place on the Continent and the very limited fall-back position which applies in this country.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the Minister agree that the amount of beef going into intervention is minimal and that most of it is in Northern Ireland? Does he not agree that a beef subsidy is being paid to keep beef at a reasonable price for old-age pensioners and certain special categories?

Mr. Strang: That is fair. Not only is the amount in intervention minimal, but we have taken action to reduce sharply the whole amount going into intervention and we intend to see that amount fall further.

European Community

Mr. Moate: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet other EEC Ministers of Agriculture.

Mr. Crawford: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet his EEC colleagues.

Mr. Peart: At the next meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 21st–22nd June.

Mr. Moate: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the commitment to New Zealand on dairy imports was a fundamental part of the Government's renegotiation? Will he confirm that he

regards the agreement as being absolutely binding on both Britain and its Community partners, and that at the next meeting there will be no going back on commitments already given?

Mr. Peart: I can assure the hon. Member that, as I have frequently said in the Community, we believe that what was agreed at the Dublin summit in relation to New Zealand's access to the market here was a solemn pledge given by the whole Community—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) should not make remarks from a seated position. He should get up and ask me questions directly. I can assure the House that we shall fight hard for New Zealand.

Mr. Corbett: In view of my right hon. Friend's commitment to the Government's policy to seek fundamental changes in the CAP, will he consider, next time he meets the Agriculture Ministers, trying to persuade them to chuck the whole thing in and call a moratorium until they can devise a more sensible policy which is fair to producers and consumers?

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend, who carefully watches the agricultural scene, must recognise that his suggestion is completely unrealistic. We are committed to and are determined to improve the CAP as part of the ongoing business in the Community. I want liberalisation of trade and access for New Zealand. I got a variable premium system for the beef industry which was like our own deficiency payments system, and I have pressed hard to dispose of surplus production into the developing countries for food aid. We have done that and the British presence has been felt.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the CAP is to succeed in the next five or 10 years we must abolish the green pound?

Mr. Peart: Inevitably there must be a major adjustment here, but we cannot do it immediately because it would harm our consumers.

Miss Boothroyd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that consumers make up 100 per cent. of the Community and that they have no voice to speak directly for them in Brussels? Will he press for a commissioner of consumer affairs to be appointed to look after their interests and to redress the imbalance within the CAP?

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that. I am the Minister for Agriculture and Food, and I continually press the consumer position.

Mr. Jopling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the most important things he can do when he next meets the Community Ministers of Agriculture is to impress upon them that it is absolutely vital for the benefit both of producers and of consumers in this country that our existing marketing boards should be allowed to continue working in the way they are at the moment?

Mr. Peart: I stated the other day at the Dairy Federation conference my views on the Milk Marketing Board, which is an example of a very successful organisation. I have stated precisely what the Government intend to do.

Potatoes

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the prospects for the current crop of potatoes; and what steps he intends to take to ensure adequacy of supply next winter, while safeguarding the consumer from unjustified profiteering.

Mr. Bishop: It is still too early to make any firm estimate of production from the 1976 crop. Plantings should now be complete and the area planted by registered producers in Great Britain is estimated at 186,000 hectares, 6,000 hectares more than in 1975. Given normal yields, this should provide sufficient potatoes to meet our requirements. Until the level of production can be assessed, it is impossible to say whether any steps will need to be taken to supplement supplies, but we will continue to watch the situation closely and will take prompt action if necessary.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that, notwithstanding the vagaries of the weather, the housewife now has the very strong impression that there has been a considerable amount of unjustified profiteering during the last 12 months? May we expect in the near future a statement on the investigations that the Government were conducting on the distribution of potatoes?

Mr. Bishop: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern and the concern felt generally on this subject. I remind him

that the report of the Price Commission found no evidence of excessive margins in the distribution of potatoes. Of course some producers have done well, but returns from agricultural crops inevitably vary from season to season and it is fundamental that the high prices are due to the very much lower yield. That has affected the profit returns to producers generally.

MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister how many ministerial broadcasts he has made since taking office.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): One, Sir.

Mr. Ashley: When my right hon. Friend next makes a broadcast, will he care to refer to the responsible attitude of the trade unions which are now planning for a return to free collective bargaining, because, as David Basnett said yesterday, they want to avoid an atomic explosion of wages? Will he agree that that creative attitude is in direct contrast with the attitude of those in management who are now busily devoting their time and energy to schemes designed to evade taxation?

The Prime Minister: We shall have considerable problems next year when we discuss the ending of the agreement on pay which will expire in July 1977. It is generally recognised by trade unions and by the Government that there will have to be consultation about these matters, and we shall be ready to enter upon that as soon as seems appropriate.
There may be a fringe element of management concerned with tax evasion. I want to emphasise, as I did yesterday, that we need the skill and good will of management if we are to solve some of the problems which lie ahead of us. I am satisfied that the great majority of management is helping in that direction.

Mrs. Thatcher: When he next makes a ministerial broadcast will the Prime Minister explain what he proposes to do with the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill? Does he propose to redeem the broken pledge on the last vote on that Bill by dropping the measure?

The Prime Minister: I shall of course be very happy to discuss the Shipbuilding Bill on television or in any other forum if it seems appropriate. I must resist the right hon. Lady's view about the way in which the vote was conducted. I do not wish to exacerbate or add to the difficulties which exist in the House, but I am bound to say that some of the accounts which have appeared do not tally with my version or my understanding of what took place, and it is at least as likely that I am right as that the Opposition Chief Whip is right.

Mrs. Hayman: Will my right hon.
Friend take the opportunity of his next television broadcast to explain the value of the child benefit scheme to families in this country rather than allowing the Cabinet to retreat in panic from the most important social measure for families that we have?

The Prime Minister: The child benefit scheme has not been abandoned, but it has been partly implemented by giving £1 for the first child. It cannot be fully implemented, as I stated yesterday in the course of ray long speech which my hon. Friend found sufficiently convincing to vote for.

Mrs. Thatcher: Having seen the Prime Minister before on this matter, may I just say to him that there is no question but that there was a broken pledge with a named pair—a pledge which was honoured in the first Division and not in the second? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether as Prime Minister, he proposes to keep his ill-gotten gain at any price.

The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the right hon. Lady. It is not the case, as we understand the situation, that there was a broken pledge. On the evening I saw the right hon. Lady, when I had returned from Scotland and saw her within half an hour, I had not acquainted myself with the full facts, because I was anxious to see her quickly. Having acquainted myself with the full facts, I am afraid that I cannot accept her version of the matter. [Interruption.] The Chief Whip would probably like to say a lot about it, but what should restrain both sides of the House is the fact that we have to work together if parliamentary democracy is to continue.
I do not think that it would help to have a public version of all that went on. I would prefer, if possible, to see the usual channels restored in other ways. After all, there will be an occasion in the decades to come when the Opposition will be in Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Never."] Well, some time. I should like to persuade the right hon. Lady that it is not our view that a pledge was broken on this occasion.

Mrs. Thatcher: indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: If I cannot persuade the right hon. Lady, I am afraid that the issue must rest there for the time being.

Mr. Heffer: When my right hon. Friend next makes a ministerial broadcast, will he explain to the nation why on every occasion that the Conservative Party has no policy to offer the nation it resorts to smears and slanders such as equating the Labour Party with either the Gestapo or East European countries? Is it not time that the nation was informed by a broadcast of what social democracy really means and how we are the greatest defenders of our democratic rights and liberties?

The Prime Minister: I listened to that part of the right hon. Lady's speech yesterday, but I do not think that the House took it very seriously. I am not at all sure that I should want to spend time on a broadcast on this matter. I am not aware that in the Iron Curtain countries to which the right hon. Lady referred there is a free Press with the kind of criticism of the Government that we see here every day. I am not aware that people can move freely about between their jobs nor—and this is the ultimate sanction which the right hon. Lady herself may be able to secure support for some time—are they free, as are the people of this country, to change their Government. If she really believes that we resemble an Iron Curtain country, all I can say is that that kind of exaggeration will be treated with derision.

Mr. Montgomery: When the Prime Minister next makes a ministerial broadcast, will he tell the British people that the Government will not accept the view being put forward by trade unions—that we should have non-elected local councillors? Will he reaffirm his belief again


and state categorically, that all local councillors must be elected through the ballot box?

The Prime Minister: I have not studied that particular matter but, as the hon. Gentleman formulates it, I would accept what he says.

NATO SECRETARY-GENERAL

Mr. Banks: asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the Secretary-General of NATO.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to meet the Secretary-General in the near future. But my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary met him at the North Atlantic Council meeting in Oslo on 20th and 21st May; and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is seeing him today at the meeting of the NATO Defence Planning Committee in Brussels.

Mr. Banks: What assurance will the Prime Minister give the Secretary-General that he will not cheat the country out of its proper and vital defence rôle by implementing any part of the Labour Party programme on defence to appease the Marxist members in his party, an action for which he has no mandate and which the great majority of people will deplore?

The Prime Minister: When I have the pleasure of meeting Dr. Luns we do not conduct our conversations on that basis. I think that the general NATO attitude towards Britain is that she is making a full and proper contribution to a unified defence system. I have had no complaint on any other score; and I doubt that we shall be discussing those matters.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Prime Minister have a word with Dr. Luns about the SNP commitment to a separate Scottish air force? He might even pass on some of the well informed speeches which my hon. Friends hope to make this afternoon on the operational efficiency and costs of a tartan air force.

The Prime Minister: When Dr. Luns and I meet we discuss matters of more immediate practical importance than that, but if the Scottish nationalists would like some assistance, I shall ask the Secretary

of State for Defence to give them some idea of what the cost for a separate air force would be. It might frighten them a little.

Mr. Tebbit: When the Prime Minister meets the Secretary-General will he discuss with him the fact that in recent weeks it has emerged from his own Government's estimates that Russian spending on defence is very much higher than we believed it to be when we conducted our own defence reviews? In view of this, should we not conduct another review to see whether it is necessary for us to spend something faintly approaching the 11 per cent. or 12 per cent. of GNP that the Russians spend on defence?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the Soviet defence capacity has been underestimated. What has been underestimated is the proportion of the Soviet GDP that it involves. According to the latest figures, it looks as though the Russians have had to absorb about 11 per cent. or 12 per cent. of their GDP per annum, but this does not make any difference to the assumption which has been made by the chiefs of staff and others of the actual size of the Soviet capability. It has been increasing in recent years, and this has not been disguised.

Mr. Watt: When the Prime Minister meets the Secretary-General, will he let him know that the proposed air force of the Scottish Parliament will be one that is relevant to the needs of Scotland and suitable for patrolling the fishing limits around our shores? Can he tell us when he will place some orders for Jetstream aircraft with Scottish Aviation Ltd. for aircraft suitable for such a purpose now?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has assumed the rôle of Shadow Minister of Defence, but if he has I salute him and congratulate him on his maiden speech. I would say to him that I hope that the people of Scotland will believe that their defence needs are adequately covered by the defence arrangements for the United Kingdom. I hope that they will not listen to the rather silly nonsense which is talked about setting up a separate defence service, presumably with another army, navy and air force, to protect the Scottish people.

GOVERNOR OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Prime Minister if he will meet the Governor of the Bank of England.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to meet the Governor in the immediate future. But my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer maintains close contact with him.

Mr. Watkinson: When my right hon. Friend next meets the Governor of the Bank of England will he discuss with him the pivotal rôle of the Bank, the Government and industry in the oncoming upturn? Will he take care not to repeat the blunders of the Barber Administration and ensure complete control over the money supply during the coming period? Will he also issue the strongest directive to the banking system that investment funds should find their way into productive industry?

The Prime Minister: I take my hon. Friend's last point completely. I hope that with the upturn that is coming that will be so.
As regards control of the money supply, I hope that we can learn from the mistakes and excesses of the previous Administration.
The House should absorb the figures of the increase in the money supply last time because they hold a great lesson for us. In 1973 the increase in the money supply—[An HON. MEMBER: "Reading."] yes, I am reading—was 28·5 per cent.; in March 1974 it was 25·2 per cent.; in March 1975 it had been reduced to 10·7 per cent. and in March 1976 to 9·6 per cent. That is the reason why we had the terrible burst of inflation in 1974 and 1975 and why it is coming down so fast now—

Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman has got it right.

The Prime Minister: —aided by the pay policy. I do not want to make relations between the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the Opposition Front Bench any worse.

Mr. Lawson: In view of the Prime Minister's great interest in and long experience of these matters and in view of

his continued assertions that sterling is at present under-valued, will he tell the House precisely what he considers the right value of sterling to be?

The Prime Minister: There was a time when I used to read the hon. Gentleman with some interest. I never then heard him make such a suggestion, and he should not do so now. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that it would be foolish for me to make such an assumption.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 14TH JUNE—Supply [24th Allotted Day]: there will be a debate on Northern Ireland security, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

At seven o'clock the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration.

Motion on the Food Subsidies (Increase of Financial Limit) Order.

TUESDAY 15TH JUNE—Second Reading of the Energy Bill [Lords].

At seven o'clock the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration.

Motion on EEC Document on Baking Tests (Cereals).

WEDNESDAY 16TH JUNE—Remaining stages of the New Towns (Amendment) Bill and of the Armed Forces Bill.

THURSDAY 17TH JUNE—Debate on developments in the European Communities, November 1975 to April 1976, Command No. 6497, when EEC Documents on the Greek application, the Tindemans Report, textiles, aid to non-associated countries and New Zealand butter will be relevant.

Motion on EEC documents on employees' rights and company law.

FRIDAY 18TH JUNE—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 21ST JUNE—Supply [25th Allotted Day]: subject for debate to be announced later.

Mrs. Thatcher: In view of the new assessment of legislative priorities, will the Leader of the House tell us whether he proposes to give time for petitions on the Shipbuilding and Aircraft Industries Bill which people have a right to make and for them also to be heard, or does he propose to leave them with the right to make them but without the right for the House to hear them?
Secondly, will he tell us why, despite representations every week and yesterday, he has made a positive decision not to allow the House of Commons to discuss the pay restraint policy before the TUC discusses it on Wednesday?

Mr. Foot: To take the right hon. Lady's second question first, if the House and the Opposition had wished to have a discussion on the pay situation and proposals before the meeting of the TUC on 16th June, it would have been open to them to ask for such a debate. As I mentioned to the right hon. Lady when she asked me on an earlier occasion whether there would be a White Paper on the subject, there will definitely be a White Paper and that will be open for debate and decision by the House according to the manner in which such matters have been dealt with before and were dealt with last year. I hope that that satisfies the right hon. Lady on that point.
On the first point, I do not accept the right hon. Lady's premise that there has been an alteration in legislative priorities. We cannot take everything at once. Therefore, we are making the arrangements that I proposed to the House.
Regarding the particular point about petitioners, that cannot be dealt with by a reply to the right hon. Lady at this time. We had to deal with an entirely unprecedented situation. We are not extinguishing the claims of petitioners in any sense. Petitioners have never had any Standing Order that protected them if rules on hybridity were raised long after the Second Reading of a Bill. I think that more and more people throughout the country are beginning to understand that we had a very good case and

that the Government dealt with it in a proper way.

Mrs. Thatcher: I have asked the right hon. Gentleman almost every week about an economic debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yesterday."]—and he has consistently refused such a debate.
I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that his understanding of the parliamentary system is that people have a right to petition, but that he is prepared to deny them the right to have their petitions heard.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Lady is not entitled to jump to that latter conclusion. I suggest that she examines the matter further before making such assertions.
Regarding the allowing or providing of time for an economic debate, I am not sure whether the right hon. Lady wants another day such as we had yesterday, but we certainly had a debate then in which economic affairs were fully covered. The arrangements of the House of Commons are such that when the Opposition wish to force a debate on economic affairs, particularly when they are uppermost in the minds of the nation, they have full facilities for doing so. Yesterday, when the right hon. Lady was suggesting that I was trying to interfere in some way with that right, she was under a severe misapprehension.

Mr. Beith: Does the Leader of the House recognise that it will be difficult to have an orderly and clearly focused debate on so diverse a jumble of EEC documents as is set down for Thursday, ranging, as they do, from the Greek application to New Zealand butter?
In the light of what the Prime Minister said, will the right hon. Gentleman or the Patronage Secretary take an opportunity of setting out what he sees as the Government's side of the story regarding the vote which took place before the recess? Does he realise that many people inside and outside this House are prepared to judge the matter fairly if they have the facts before them but that the words used give the impression that there were some cosy arrangements on both sides which it would be too embarrassing to disclose?

Mr. Foot: I have nothing to add to what the Prime Minister said on that


subject. The way that he proposed to deal with the matter is the best way from the point of view of the House of Commons. That is also what I said on the Friday morning after the debate.
I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the EEC documents. The arrangements for the debate on that day mean that a wide number of subjects will be covered. That is one of the problems of dealing with all the EEC matters that have necessarily to come before the House. I hope that the subjects I have indicated will enable Members to consider what can be covered. There is a list of the documents in the Vote Office. As a number of documents are involved, I thought it convenient to publish the list in Hansard. We may still have to have some further individual debates. I would not rule out that possibility. However, I hope that we shall be able to make progress in covering the important questions discussed in this House if we are to give proper consideration to EEC business.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I did not hear him say that the debate on the Public Lending Right Bill would be resumed next week? Is he aware that although there are sometimes unavoidable reasons for the adjournment of business, on the occasion concerned there were only two Opposition speakers to be heard so that the House is now in the position of being almost at the end of a Second Reading debate on that matter? Since only a short time will be required to complete that debate, will my right hon. Friend, even at this late stage, still try to fit the Bill into our proceedings?

Mr. Foot: When my hon. Friend refers to the Public Lending Right Bill, he touches not only my heart but possibly my pocket as well. I am eager to see that Bill make further progress. However, I am sorry that I cannot provide further time for that measure next week. We are looking for an opportunity to find the amount of time necessary for the passage of the Bill.

Mr. John Davies: With regard to next Thursday's debate on EEC matters, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that for those of us who are accustomed to speaking in late-night watches on EEC

matters, it will come as a refreshing experience to speak on those subjects in the course of the day? Will he also consider a question which I put to him some time ago and to which at the time he gave a relatively positive answer—namely, the possibility of a Government statement on the Tindemans Report, which will enable a future debate to take a more realistic turn?

Mr. Foot: I regret that I have not responded to the right hon. Gentleman's request for a statement to be made before the House debates that topic. I shall examine whether there is a possibility of so doing, or whether the matter can be dealt with by the Minister in opening next week's debates. I shall look at what was promised and see how best we can fulfil the promise made to the right hon Gentleman.

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend consider enlarging a little on the subjects to be debated on Thursday relating to the EEC, particularly that relating to textiles? He will appreciate that there is urgent need to debate the textile industry and the clothing manufacturing industry because both suffer badly from cheap imports, despite the slight upturn in the textile trade.
Secondly, will he tell the House whether any time has been allocated to debate the subject of a register of lobbyists of Parliament, since a good deal may emerge about what happened on 27th May and in the preceding days as a result of the efforts of lobbyists on behalf of the Bristol Channel Shipbuilders and Ship Repairers?

Mr. Foot: That is a much wider subject. I cannot promise an early debate on that matter, but I am sure that it would provide fascinating information for the country.
On the subject of the EEC debate, what my hon. Friend suggests in regard to the textile measure will be in order in the forthcoming debates. Let us see how we proceed. Let us see what is left over so that we may then decide whether we shall have further individual debates. There is great difficulty in providing time to debate these matters. We are doing our best as I explained to the House a week or two ago.

Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 22nd June there will


take place a much-publicised Energy Forum at Church House, which will be addressed by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Energy, and which forum a vast number of extra-parliamentary bodies have been asked to attend and to give evidence? This contrasts starkly with the miserable half-day offered to the House to discuss energy legislation in respect of the obligations relating to the International Energy Agency and the whole area of energy conservation. In the interests of all those hon. Members who are interested in the subject of energy conservation, will he consider whether we may have a full-day's debate on that legislation?

Mr. Foot: I fully accept the force of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The fact that we have not proposed such a debate does not indicate any lack of enthusiasm for the subject. We are eager that the country should know what is to be said by the Government on 15th June and at the forthcoming conference. However, as everybody in the House recognises, we are short of parliamentary time and cannot provide all the time required for all matters.

Mr. Michael Stewart: In regard to Thursday's business, does my right hon. Friend recollect that this is by no means the first time that European business has been set down for discussion in this House during a week when the European Assembly is sitting? This means that Members of this House who are also Members of the European Assembly are bound to be charged with dereliction of duty in one direction or the other. Will he say whether the situation just happens in that way, or whether it is part of Government policy?

Mr. Foot: I can assure my right hon. Friend that it is not part of Government policy, and in the discussions that took place on the arrangements for that debate we said that we would do our best to avoid such a clash. However, there are difficulties in these matters and the operation of two Parliaments at the same time underlines the problem.

Mr. Cormack: In view of the Prime Minister's comments this afternoon about disputed votes, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for that matter and all the events that took place on 27th May to

be referred either to the Procedure Committee or to a Select Committee of this House?

Mr. Foot: I do not think that that is the way in which the House has dealt with problems of that kind in the past, and I do not think that it is the best of proceeding on this occasion. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier.

Mr. Faulds: Will the Leader of the House accept that I am not a fractious fellow and that I am easily satisfied? [Hon. Members: "Oh."] Does he recall that his predecessor in office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), showed bland unconcern about the telephone system in the House because apparently his own telephone occasionally worked? I have now filled a record of 20 pages with details of malfunctioning of my telephone in the House over a period of five months. The total has now reached a figure of 300 occasions of malfunctioning. Is there anything my right hon. Friend can do to get the telephone system in the House to work much more efficiently in the interests of hon. Members?

Mr. Foot: Leaving aside the incredible premise from which my hon. Friend started his remarks and leaving aside any criticism that he may have inserted about my predecessor in office, who I am sure sought to deal with this matter in the best interests of the House, I turn with greatest sympathy to the conclusion which he reached. I shall examine what my hon. Friend said and see whether we can do something about the situation.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: If I may take up the point made by the right hon. Member for Fulham Mr. Stewart), is it true that the Leader of the House did not realise that the European Parliament was sitting in plenary session next week? I cannot believe that he did not know. If so, why did he table all these EEC matters for discussion at a time in the Session when 24 hon. Members will be abroad attending the European Parliament? It is monstrous that the right hon. Gentleman should bring forward those matters for discussion on such a day.

Mr. Foot: What I said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) was that it was


not Government policy to seek to discuss EEC matters in this House when the European Assembly happened to be sitting. It is a fact that we have to fit in the business of this House, and sometimes the business in this House must take priority over some other assembly.

Sir G. de Freitas: Does my right hon. Friend remember that two or three weeks ago I asked him to consider the possibility of debating the Government Green Paper on water supplies? Does he recognise that successive Governments have not taken seriously the water problems of the East Midlands and East Anglia?

Mr. Foot: I appreciate what my right hon. Friend says, but I cannot promise an immediate debate on the matter.

Mr. Watt: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government will make time available to discuss the future of the fishing industry and so remove some of the uncertainly that constantly hangs over that industry?

Mr. Foot: The statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary earlier in the week raised matters in regard to fishing policy generally. We shall examine whether we can secure time to discuss the matter. However, I cannot give any immediate promise.

Mr. Jay: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that when the House shortly considers the proposed Order on eviscerated chickens, the debate will take place on the Floor of the House rather than in some Committee?

Mr. Foot: I understand the interest in all quarters of the House on this subject, and I also know the ability of the House in seeking to ensure that these debates take place on the Floor.

Mr. Jasper More: In regard to what happened on 27th May, and irrespective of any discussion between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, having regard to the fact that the hon. Member for Staleybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) did not vote in the first Division but voted in the second, and also having regard to the fact that, as a Government Whip, he could not pursue that line of conduct

without his being subject to the express direction of the Government, will the Leader of the House arrange in the course of the following week for the Prime Minister to make a formal apology to the House? Alternatively, will the Leader of the House make an announcement that the Government do not intend to proceed with the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill?

Mr. Foot: For the reasons given by the Prime Minister, and for the reasons that I have given on other occasions, I do not think that this is the way in which to discuss these pairing questions, but I certainly sake this opportunity of repudiating any criticism whatsoever of my hon. Friend the Member for Staly-bridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry).

Mrs. Millie Miller: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, when considering the complaint of my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), who made so many criticisms of the telephone services of the House, that the House of Commons (Services) Committee has had proposals from the Post Office which, if implemented, could well cost the House about £4 million and employ an area equivalent to Westminster Hall in installing a new system of the kind that the Post Office recommends?

Mr. Foot: I thank my hon. Friend. I shall also have a look at what she has suggested.

Mr. Marten: Concerning the miscellany of EEC documents to be considered on Thursday, does not the Leader of the House, on reflection, think that he is treating the Community with the contempt that it deserves?
As to the question of the vote on "Black Thursday", it would be appreciated by the House if the Government Chief Whip would make a statement comparable to that made here by my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip.

Mr. Foot: If I unravelled all the implications of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am not sure whether at the end the proper response would be to say "Yes" or "No". Therefore, I think I had better leave that point.
I appreciate the difficulties of the House in dealing with EEC business, as all the Members of the House who attended the


debate a week or two ago will recognise. We are seeking to overcome those difficulties, and this EEC debate is one part of that effort. We do not by any means claim that it is a fully satisfactory way of dealing with the matter.

Mr. Peyton: I echo, in rather a restrained way, the congratulations offered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) to the Leader of the House on having found some daylight hours for the discussion of European documents, but we have rather a mass of paper to consider on that day, and I hope that the Leader of the House will be a little more restrained on future occasions on the supply of paper. Secondly, I echo the complaint made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) that the day chosen is a singularly clumsy choice, in that all those who have the most intimate acquaintance with European affairs will be at the European Parliament.

Mr. Foot: Sometimes the complaint made against this Government and previous Governments on this matter is that too few documents have been supplied. Now I gather that the complaint is that there are too many.
I understand the criticism that is made by hon. Members from all sides of the House about the concurrence of the Parliament here and the Assembly in Strasbourg, but sometimes that difficulty has to be overcome by the method we have used on this occasion. We certainly have no deliberate policy of trying to do this. The right hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House should recognise that other Members also have a right to join in these debates. We have to order the business of the House primarily to suit this House.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members of the Assembly pleaded to be paired next week? Would be not think it appropriate if we took all the remaining stages of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill in Ascot week, and if we had running three-line Whips on every day when there was a Garden Party?

Mr. Foot: We have had a look at the legislative possibilities in Ascot week, and I can assure my hon. Friend that

we cannot absolutely rely upon them. But I will not be pressed, even by my hon. Friend, to discuss the question of pairs.

Mr. Kimball: Is the Leader of the House aware of the demands on all sides of the House for an opportunity to debate the Swann report on the veterinary profession, and that this report is particularly appropriate now in view of the misunderstanding concerning the European regulations on poultry, and also in view of the threat of rabies?

Mr. Foot: I was not fully aware of the demands on all sides of the House for such a debate. I am better aware of them now.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend make the necessary arrangements to debate and subsequently to set up an official public inquiry into the workings of the Bank of England, with specific reference to illegal currency dealings, the evasion and non-payment of the dollar premium, and all the subsequent events leading to the debate which took place this week?
Will my right hon. Friend agree that this is especially important in view of the fact that in this week we have agreed to a Police Bill which removes from the police their obligations to investigate their own difficulties and problems, and that therefore, on that basis, it must be wrong for Treasury officials to carry out an investigation into what is happening at the Bank of England? Will my right hon. Friend not agree that we need to have an independent look at the whole of this matter?

Mr. Foot: I cannot promise any such inquiry, but that is obviously a question that my right hon. Friend could raise in a general debate.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Has the Leader of the House noticed the Prayer put down some weeks ago on the subject of the invalid care allowance? The Government are intending to pay the allowance in July, without the House having debated the regulations. No one wants to stop the new allowance from being paid, but there are some particularly serious problems of eligibility which should be discussed. Will the Leader


of the House agree that, as the Government have lost their nerve in regard to their most controversial legislation, this might be a more useful way of spending the time next week?

Mr. Foot: The proposals put before the House by the Government for discussion next week all relate to serious matters which have to be discussed, but I shall have a look at the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Urwin: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to comment further on the conduct of business outside the House of Commons next week, with specific reference to the serious limitations imposed upon his ministerial colleagues with regard to their meetings with their counterparts in different parts of the world, including Europe? Having regard to the attitude of the Opposition, who I understand are keen to be represented in the European Parliament next week, will my right hon. Friend undertake to tell their official spokesmen just how important it is for all Members of the House of Commons who are involved in the fora in Europe—the Council of Europe, Western European Union and the European Parliament—to be present in order to represent the British Government and the British Parliament?

Mr. Foot: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope it will be understood throughout the House that the proper conduct of the Government's business requires as soon as possible the restoration of the operation of the usual channels. That is what we wish to secure.

Mr. Hannam: With regard to Tuesday's business, will the Leader of the House, in accepting that two and a half to three hours is a totally inadequate time in which to discuss the Energy Bill, consider allowing the House to return at 10 o'clock for further discussion of that very important Second Reading debate?

Mr. Foot: I will look at it but I will not make any promise. There is quite a lot of business that the House still has to transact after 10 o'clock, I am sorry to say. I cannot make any promise but I will see whether there is a chance of doing it.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Has my right hon. Friend noticed Early-Day Motion No.

408 on the Child Benefit Scheme, standing on the Order Paper in the names of a substantial number of hon. Members on the Government side of the House? Will my right hon. Friend give time for the House to debate this subject before the Government introduce their proposals and fall flat of their face?

[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to honour its commitment to implement the Child Benefit Scheme in full from April 1977.]

Mr. Foot: I certainly appreciate how strong is the feeling of my hon. Friends on this subject. They have taken the opportunity on occasions in the House to make representations about it. I cannot promise a debate in the immediate future but I am sure that my hon. Friend and others will continue to make representations on the subject.

Mr. Clegg: Is the Leader of the House aware of the deep anxiety in Fleetwood and Humberside about the fishing industry? Is there likely to be a statement next week from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about Government plans to deal with the situation?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I asked the previous Secretary of State for the Environment when a statement would be made about the Central Lancashire New Town? He said that a statement would be made in the spring but the present Secretary of State said that it would be made in the summer. When is summer coming in?

Mr. Foot: I shall have to look up the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. There must be a statement on fishing policy, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary indicated earlier in the week, but I cannot say that it will be next week.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Will my right hon. Friend set aside a short period in the near future in which the House can discuss ways of preventing the illegal importation of animals from abroad to guard against the horrific and terrifying disease of rabies?

Mr. Foot: Of course the Government are fully aware of the deep concern about that subject, but I cannot promise an early debate in Government time. The subject is to be raised on the Adjournment next week. The absence of the provision of


Government time does not mean that we are not doing everything that we possibly can to deal with the matter.

Mr. Dykes: On the subject of the EEC, is not the configuration of documents even less logical than the right hon. Gentleman said because of the cereals debate being taken separately on Tuesday? Will the Leader of the House reconsider, in view of his suggestion of a compromise, taking Tindemans separately and putting it nearer the European Council's summit meeting? Will he treat the House with less contempt? The basis of the procedure on EEC business is totally unsatisfactory, above all when the European Parliament is meeting.

Mr. Foot: I repudiate any suggestion that the Government are treating the House with contempt. No hon. Member who attended our recent debate would subscibe to that view. It was not a view held by those who took part in the debate. Whatever their views on the Common Market, hon. Members on both sides recognise that it is an extremely difficult matter for the House. We are trying to overcome the difficulties. I am not saying that the procedure is ideal and I am not suggesting that we can dispose of all the subjects simply because they are put down on the same day. Let us see how we proceed and see what else needs to be done.

Mr. Loyden: In spite of the crammed programme, will my right hon. Friend seriously consider setting aside time for a brief discussion on the sugar industry? Is he aware of the decisions that are pending in the industry and the possible effects that they might have on the employment situation on Merseyside?

Mr. Foot: There are great difficulties in providing time for a debate, but that does not depreciate the importance of the subject. I know that it is important to my hon. Friend's constituency and to other constituencies. I know the representations that he and others have made to Ministers, but I cannot promise an immediate debate.

Mr. Michael Latham: Has the Leader of the House seen Early-Day Motion No. 412 which deals with the alleged South African connection? Will the Govern-

ment do something about the deafening silence of the previous Prime Minister on his serious allegations?

[That this House believes that the time has now come for the Prime Minister to tell the House and the country what hard evidence, if any, is available to the Government to link either South African companies, or the South African Security Services, with smear campaigns against British politicians, and from what sources any such evidence might come; is tired of having to rely on leaks, hints or exposures in the media, or the bizarre public allegations of individuals who subsequently retract them; and further believes that this matter, which involves serious allegations against a major trading partner of the United Kingdom, must now be publicly cleared up as a matter of urgency.]

Mr. Foot: I am not sure that the normal allegation against the previous Prime Minister was that he was guilty of deafening silence. I cannot promise an early debate.

Mr. Forman: As the Government have indicated that they will publish a White Paper on the outcome of the UNCTAD IV negotiations, will the Leader of the House seriously consider an early debate on that important subject, which is of interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House?

Mr. Foot: I accept the desire for a debate on that matter and I recognise its importance. But the House will have understood from the questions put to me in the last 20 minutes that if we were to provide time for debates on all subjects, we would have no prospect of rising for the Summer Recess at a time when summer is still here. I hope that hon. Members will take that into account.

Mr. Lipton: On the subject of the Summer Recess, will my right hon. Friend consider the possible generous use of the guillotine so that we can get through all the business?

Mr. Foot: Such dangerous thoughts are never absent from the mind of any Leader of the House and they are bound to be taken into account at some stage or other. I am not making any prophecies. My hon. Friend's suggestion is one


of the most constructive that we have had.

Mr. Madel: How many days are the Government giving to the Report stage of the Dock Work Regulation Bill? As this is a controversial measure and because the industry wants to talk to the Government more about it, could we not postpone it until the autumn? The Government are always saying that they do not want to cause trouble, and more time would be helpful.

Mr. Foot: I know how constructive the hon. Gentleman's proposals were as a member of the Committee which considered the Bill. We want to get the Bill on to the statute book as soon as we can. The workers in the docks want it and we cannot accept any proposal for postponing it until the autumn.

Mr. Gow: Does the Leader of the House remember that during the debate a fortnight ago today when he was urging the House to suspend the Standing Orders relating to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, the principal argument that he advanced was the great urgency of getting it on to the statute book? How does he reconcile that with his statement today that the Bill will not be considered next week?

Mr. Foot: I still think that it is right that the House should get the Bill on to the statute book this Session. The fact that we have made no announcement for it to be included in the business next week does not prevent that from happening.

Mr. Luce: Will the Leader of the House be more forthcoming about the disputed vote, in view of the fact that there might have been cheating? Because of the harm that that is doing to Parliament, will he do what he can to clear up the matter?

Mr. Foot: I have nothing to add to what was said by the Prime Minister during exchanges with the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition and I do not believe that any answer to the hon. Gentleman's question would assist now.

Mr. Rost: Will the Leader of the House make a first move towards redeeming his reputation by allocating further time to the Second Reading of the Energy Bill [Lords]? Does he not agree that this contentious and important Bill was considerably amended in another place and that he should consider allocating a full day to it?

Mr. Foot: I recognise the importance of the Bill. In response to an earlier question I said that we would look at the possibility of returning to it after the Private Business set down for seven o'clock. I cannot make any promise about it but the fact that we have been able to allocate only this amount of time is not a reflection on the importance of the Bill.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his answer on the Dock Work Regulation Bill and try to achieve a fuller implementation of the child benefit provisions, which are of more benefit to the people but which seem to have suffered from the Labour Party's changes of policy in the last month?

Mr. Foot: There are many important measures that we would like to add to the list of measures to be passed through the House. The Dock Work Regulation Bill has been examined fully in Committee and it is for the good of the country and for the proper procedures of the House that we should get that Bill on the statute book. That does not preclude us from proceeding with other matters as well.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does not the Leader of the House think that it is time the Government Chief Whip made a statement about the events of 27th May now that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) has identified the hon. Member who broke his word that he would not vote that night, and thereby the House passed by one vote that shameful motion?

Mr. Foot: I repudiate entirely all the pejorative phrases the hon. Gentleman uses about other hon. Members. I do not think that that is the proper way in which questions should be put in the House.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES) COMMITTEE

Mr. Raphael Tuck: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you be kind enough to tell me who is the Chairman of the House of Commons (Services) Committee? In the cafeteria downstairs I was today charged no less than 25p for one whole baked apple, which is disgraceful.

Mr. Speaker: That is information to me, because I am not allowed in the cafeteria. The chairmanship of the Committee concerned is not a matter for me. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps at some stage address a question to the Leader of the House, who might guide and advise him.

BILL PRESENTED

GRAND JURIES (RESTORATION)

Mr. Michael English, supported by Mr. George Gardiner, Mr. Cyril Smith, Mr. Russell Kerr, Mr. Philip Goodhart, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. John Osborn, Mr. Christopher Price, Mr. John Davies, Mr. John Horam, Mr. Nigel Lawson and Mr. David Marquand, presented a Bill to restore grand juries to criminal law procedure: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18th June, and to be printed. [Bill 163.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 3(1)(b), the Motion relating to Northern Ireland may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Foot.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[23RD ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

Orders of the Day — THE ROYAL AIR FORCE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me to open this debate on the subject of the Royal Air Force. Courtesy requires that my first words should be words of welcome to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force who has recently taken on that task. He and I have crossed swords across the Floor before. I seem to remember an occasion when I was able to offer him a trip on a sludge-dumping vessel. I hope that nothing he says or does in his new office will cause me to regret that he did not take advantage of that offer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will set himself standards in his office and in the House of which we shall have no cause to complain.
Having said that, I must say in general to the Government Front Bench that this, the last in the series of debates on defence matters this year, comes at the end of a season which has had some unhappy features. I refer not merely to the areas of political disagreement which are inevitable between the two Front Benches as the Government's policy now stands, but to a degree to the unwillingness shown by Ministers in the Defence Department to listen to the debate. I am sorry that once again the Secretary of State appears unable to be with us.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is very sorry that he cannot be present. A series of NATO meetings is taking place, and his attendance at that important international forum is made more complicated by the present problems in the House. My right hon. Friend has been commuting from London to Brussels all this week. I know that he would have wished to be here, but it was


a difficult choice between conflicting duties.

Mr. Onslow: I accept that, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his frank statement. However, there have been previous occasions when my right hon. Friends and I believed that the reasons for the Secretary of State's nonattendance were not so compelling.
Another reason for the unsatisfactory nature of this series of debates may be their format. It does no good that Ministers speaking for the individual Services for which they are responsible should hold back from the House until then matters which should have been in the defence review. A particular case in point is the reorganisation of the command structure of the Army in which there were matters which should have been in the defence review but which we did not learn about until the Army debate. I very much hope that the Minister responsible for the RAF will not tell us today information which should have been available to the House in the Defence Review.
I also hope that the hon. Gentleman will not fall into the trap, into which his colleagues from the Army and the Navy both fell, of padding out his speech with warmed-up stuff which the House heard in the same debate last year, if not from the same lips. It is not necessarily the fault of Ministers. If they are new to the job, they may not know all that has been said before. But I hope that those responsible for writing Ministers' speeches will note this. It is nobody's function to waste the time of the House by making once again statements which are on record and do not need to be repeated time and time again. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have no padding in his speech. If he does not know what padding is, I shall tell him if he produces it.
I want at the start to touch on two specific points which I have raised before in this series of defence debates, both of which have a bearing on the day-to-day morale of members of the RAF. Then I want to consider wider matters of longer-term and strategic importance touching particularly on the future equipment and rôle of the RAF and also on its part in the whole system of our defences.
I do not apologise for taking matters of morale first. In many ways we have

a special duty in the House, whatever party we belong to, to give a priority to people who serve the Crown in a capacity which denies them any political outlet. This responsibility must be discharged in any debate such as the one we are having now.
The Minister will already know of my anxiety about my first topic, which arises from the number of accidents which have tragically happened to RAF aircraft in recent months. I gave notice that I would raise the matter in the defence debate. On 1st April, I told the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force that there was a genuine worry about the possibility that some of the
recent, and tragically fatal, crashes may have been caused, indirectly if not directly,".— [Official Report, 1st April 1976; Vol. 908, c. 1609.]
by pressure of economies in expenditure on training sorties flown by RAF pilots. I told the junior Minister then that I hoped that he would look most seriously into the situation and that when we came to this debate would be able categorically to assure us that he had looked into the matter and satisfied himself that there was no such connection.
Since then, unhappily, there has been a further serious accident, on 30th April, when there was a mid-air collision between two Gnat aircraft and a total of four RAF pilots were killed. The House would be right to express its sympathy with the relations of all those who lost their lives in all the accidents which we are now considering. My concern in raising the matter is to do anything I can to ensure that there are no such avoidable accidents in future. If there are factors in them which are avoidable, it is essential that we should identify them.
In answering questions I put to him after that accident the Minister was kind enough to give me a reply which is printed in Hansard of 17th May, tabulating the accidents which had caused fatalities over the past three years. According to my information, there is an inaccuracy in that answer. The hon. Gentleman may be able to correct it now if action has not yet been taken to correct it: I am not aware that it has. The accident on 19th January in Cheshire was a mid-air collision between two Harrier aircraft. It is shown in the table


as having involved only one aircraft although both aircraft were single-seater types and both pilots were killed.
It is the matter of mid-air collisions which particularly causes me concern. Whatever else may be said about the tasks which are put upon the RAF in training in peacetime, they most certainly should not involve the danger of mid-air collision.
I am told that the manoeuvres which were being carried out on 19th January and on 30th April were relatively routine. The pilots were not inexperienced. This inevitably raised the question as to why these tragic accidents occurred. I heard it suggested that the cause may be the insufficient flying time allowed to individuals to enable them to carry through their task in a way which does not involve unacceptable pressures. We have a right to know whether that is so and, if so, to demand that it should be changed.
I recognise that security considerations have always precluded Ministers from making announcements in the House or elsewhere about the amount of flying time which front-line pilots are able to put in. If the Minister takes refuge behind that today, I suppose that I cannot criticise him. But will the Minister at least tell us of the percentage cuts in flying hours which resulted from the implications of the defence review? The figure that I heard suggests that it may be a substantial amount—perhaps as much as 20 per cent. in flying time over one month. If that happens, and if the tasks on the pilot remain the same, it is clear that he must try to cram into one sortie the same amount of work which in previous conditions he was able to take at a slower and more relaxed pace, and therefore presumably at a safer pace.
I pose those questions in those terms, subject to the Minister being willing—I hope he is—to give us a full and frank account of the situation as his inquiries have revealed it to be. If the Minister says that there are areas which have still not been cleared up, that inquiries are still proceeding and that no firm finding has been made, I shall have to accept that. However, I ask that he should at least assure us that he is satisfied that prima facie there is no general pressure

of that kind and that when the inquiries are completed he will give us a full statement.
The second point is an issue, of literally domestic concern to men and women in the Services. I refer to the problem of the Service man who owns his own house. The matter was one which I raised, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) in the Army debate which took place in the House on 6th May. In that debate I asked some questions of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army, to which, I am sorry to say, he has not so far replied.
I was disappointed that he had no time to touch upon the matter in his speech, so much so that I wrote to the Secretary of State on 18th May. I said how disappointed I was. I asked him specifically to assure me that he was concerned to obtain the fairest possible treatment for all members of the Armed Forces who owned their own homes and that he would initiate a thorough investigation into all aspects of the matter as they affected his departmental resposibilities. I regret that I have still not received an answer to that letter.
What is the Ministry doing to protect the interests of the Service man house-owner as affected by the current operation of the rent legislation? At that time I cited—I have come to know of more examples since then—cases where Service men posted overseas or elsewhere in the United Kingdom were suffering financial loss as a result of being unable to let their houses to a satisfactory, or any, tenant.
Alternatively, Service men suffer personal hardship when they are obliged to leave their wives and families behind in the United Kingdom so as to keep the house in occupation. That is an intolerable state of affairs. I believe that the Department agrees. I want to know what is being done about the matter, even though the prime responsibility may not rest with the Ministry of Defence.
Defence Ministers will be able to disclaim direct departmental responsibility for the Rent Acts. Nevertheless, the Government are involved in the matter as it affects servants of the Crown. Something must be done about it.
That is by no means the only matter in respect of which the Service man householder is placed at a disadvantage as a result of legislation introduced by the Labour Government. Another example has been the subject of correspondence between the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), who kindly sent copies of the correspondence to me.
We find the subject worrying. The exchange shows the degree to which the situation as it now prevails has damaged the entitlement of Service men to mortgage interest relief on houses which they are buying on mortgage and which they are no longer able to occupy. I possess a copy of a letter from the Under-Secretary which is dated 26th May and which I should like to read, in part, to the House. The passage reads:
The restrictions on mortgage interest relief imposed by the Act are causing much concern to Service men who own their own homes. Officials of the Ministry of Defence have discussed the general problem with the Board of Inland Revenue and we are, at the present time, making inquiries amongst Service house owners to establish the extent of the problem. In the course of the discussion, however, the Inland Revenue indicated that a wide group of house owners in many occupations are affected in the same way and, in their view, it would be inequitable to treat Service men differently from other house owners in a similar position.
Despite our representations on the subject, you will appreciate that the question of amending the provisions of the Act rests with the Inland Revenue.
In those circumstances the Under-Secretary prudently—but of course properly—passes the correspondence to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for his attention. That is where the ultimate responsibility lies. We may have the opportunity to ensure that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury explains the policy to us at the Report stage of the Finance Bill. My hon. Friends and I may put down an amendment which will have a practical effect in alleviating the position of the Service man house-owner. We shall look for active support from the Minister.
The Service man house-owner is in a special position. He may be posted overseas, often at short notice, in the service of the Crown. He must go. He cannot say "Hang on a minute; I cannot

let my house and I shall suffer as a result". He cannot negotiate. He is not even in the advantageous position of civil servants who are posted overseas. The civil servant is often housed overseas at no cost. He does not pay for fuel and light. He is given a free garage. That is admitted in the documentation, some of which the Minister will have seen. Therefore, the loss of tax relief for the civil servant's unoccupied house is partially or wholly offset. That does not apply to the Service man, who must pay for the accommodation which he occupies.
We must also take into account the capital gains tax situation. A Service man house-owner who finds a satisfactory tenant and lets his house is in danger of forfeiting his right to claim it as a principal private residence if he later sells it. That is a serious situation about which we require serious answers when the right moment comes—even if that moment does not occur tonight and we must wait for the Report stage of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I recently raised with the Treasury the question of capital gains tax chargeable to a Service man who sells his house and moves to another area. The Treasury indicated that it was prepared to lay an order before Parliament to take the Service man out of the area of capital gains tax. That should therefore encourage my hon. Friend on the other matters which he so rightly raised.

Mr. Onslow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that encouraging news.
This is a serious debate, and we must discuss serious matters. But I look forward nevertheless to contributions in the context of our discussions today which will certainly appeal to the sense of humour of the Royal Air Force—an attribute for which the Service has always been well known. I refer to the question of the Scottish air force. I shall not, however, devote any great time to it. The constituents of some Members of Parliament may find it difficult to take seriously the prospect of a collection of variable-geometry, tartan-covered, hot-air balloons, commanded by Monty McPython, which is about as far as most of us may imagine the Scottish air force ever going. If they want to add to the


gaiety of the RAF in this way, who am I to prevent them? But if they are greeted with loud laughter, they have only themselves to blame.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: At one level, of course, I completely agree that it is a matter of mirth and ribaldry, but, on the other hand, some of us think that the people who propose this could in certain circumstances be very near political power. We should make no mistake—if there were to be 36 or more Scottish National Party MPs, negotiations would have to begin, in my opinion, for independence. Before that happens, should not the Scottish people be absolutely clear and left in no doubt what a separate air force means?

Mr. Onslow: I have no intention of standing between the House and the speech that the hon. Member will make, and to which we shall look forward. My own half-Scottish ancestry leads me to believe that nothing turns a Scot off so much as someone making himself ridiculous. If the Scottish National Party chooses to make itself ridiculous, well and good. It will be judged thereby, to the benefit of us all.
Before turning to more serious matters, there is one other minor point on which the Under-Secretary could usefully tell us something. That is the policy that his Department is pursuing about historic aircraft. There have been some changes lately in location and so on which have concerned a number of people. There is still anxiety, for instance, about the remaining Comet I aircraft, the only one left, which I understand is at present in RAF possession. Although I do not expect the Under-Secretary to spend a good deal of time on this today, it would be helpful at some stage to know his Department's policy.
The Under-Secretary is in a real sense the custodian of an important part of our history. If we look back on that history with pride, it is right to ask the Under-Secretary to show us that he is honouring his obligation today. Equally, although we are looking back with pride for that moment, for the rest of my short speech I am afraid that I shall be looking forward with great anxiety.
I want to come at once to the effect of the Defence Review cuts on various aspects of the Royal Air Force's work. I hope that the Under-Secretary and his

hon. Friends will accept that nothing which has happened and nothing which they have said over the past year has done anything to diminish the concern which we then expressed about the future of the RAF. They have no title to assume or assert that they have satisfied us, their critics—whether in the House or outside. We remain as doubtful, as critical and as anxious as we ever were, and in some respects subsequent events have made us more anxious even than we were a year ago.
My first point concerns the so-called "tail", the support—the first candidate, it now seems, for any Service cut. In particular I want to ask the Under-Secretary to let us have some justification for the merger of the Training and Support Commands which was not, I think, mentioned in the 1975 defence review but which was "announced recently", according to paragraph 84 of Chapter I of this year's White Paper. This is a major step and we need some justification for it.
In saying that, I am not merely expressing an opinion of my own. I am prepared to quote—and shall—from the speech made by the Chief of Air Staff recently at Eastbourne. I shall come to that speech again in a moment, but in this context I want to quote what Sir Andrew Humphrey said about support:
It is nonsense to talk as though such further reductions could be made in support areas without damaging our operational capability. An operational aircraft is of no use at all without weapons and spares and maintenance facilities, and above all without expert and enthusiastic men to back it.
That comment, which most of the House will fully endorse, shows that cuts in support are bad both for efficiency and for morale.
So too are cuts in works services. I do not think that it will add anything to improve the enthusiasm or efficiency of the Air Force or the civilians who work for it to know that there will be further postponements in promised improvements in their living and working conditions. But the important point is that what Sir Andrew Humphrey has said clashes markedly with what is said in paragraph 79 of Chapter 1 of the Defence White Paper:
…savings are being found in the support area involving reductions in spares and engineering support, communications and radars, and works expenditure.


If that means what I believe it to mean, we must conclude that continuing damage is being done to the operational capability of the Air Force, above and beyond that which is openly admitted and avowed in this year's White Paper. We need to be reassured on that, because it is very important.
Turning now to the "teeth", the front line, the House must ask whether the RAF will be given adequate equipment for the tasks that it is expected to perform. That question brings me first and at once to the Nimrod aircraft. Again, I hope that the Under-Secretary will be more forthcoming on the Nimrod than his colleague, the Under-Secretary for the Royal Navy, was. Although the latter was prepared to admit that the Nimrod was critical to the anti-submarine rôle, which is after all a function of naval warfare, he did not seem to be anxious to say much more about the contribution which Nimrod would be able to make after the cuts which have been made.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. A. E. P. Duffy): indicated assent.

Mr. Onslow: I see that the Under-Secretary for the Navy delicately shuffles off responsibility again on to his hon. Friend. But this is a joint operation, and both Ministers must know a little about it. It is no good the Under-Secretary for the Royal Navy nodding wisely and leaving it to his well-briefed colleague. He had better brief himself on this as well: otherwise he will not be able to discharge his responsibilities.

Mr. Duffy: We can hear the hon. Member.

Mr. Onslow: I know that I have to speak loudly to get through thick skulls but if the hon. Gentleman has heard me loud and clear, I shall now turn down the sound slightly.
The need for Nimrod manifests itself all over the place, not merely in home waters but on the far flanks of our defence interests. It manifests itself in the Mediterranean. It is a vital contribution at the moment to Britain's contribution to the CENTO alliance. CENTO did not get much of a mention in the Defence White Paper, but there was recently a

CENTO conference here in London. On that occasion, I understand—indeed, I believe that I heard it myself—the Prime Minister said that this country attached importance to our contribution to the flanks and that the Government believed in the continued capability of CENTO.
I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that, and I should like to be reassured that what he said, if I had it right, squares totally with what is said in the Defence White Paper, in Chapter II, paragraph 19:
Part of the Canberra and Nimrod force based in Malta will remain declared to the Central Treaty Organisation … for the time being ".
How long is "the time being"? Will a time come, at the pleasure of Mr. Mintoff or at the command of the Treasury, when the importance which this country attaches to CENTO will have to diminish and when the Nimrods will be withdrawn from the Mediterranean? Where will the fine words be then?
Can the House be told what is meant? What is the extent of this country's commitment to CENTO and, in particular, how long will those Nimrods be available? We have, topically, an example of the need to be able to redeploy into the Mediterranean when change occurs there. Therefore, have we made a response, and if so what has it been, to the recent Soviet Fleet build-up in the Eastern Mediterranean? We know that NATO is worried about this, and that the Americans are worried, and we know that the French have done something about it. I believe that I saw somewhere that, now that the cod war is over, we can spare a frigate or two to go to the Mediterranean and back up the poor old Gibraltar guard ship, which must be feeling lonely at times.
But if this is an example of the unexpected being replaced by the unexpected, it is still right to ask whether the Government have adjusted the conclusions of their former review to take account of what may well turn out to be a permanent increase in the level of threat against us, and one which must therefore deserve a long-term response if we are not just to turn our backs and walk away.
There are now two questions on equipment which I wish to put. First,


what is the current attitude of the Government on the AWACS decision, and how do the Government see the Nimrod capability, which this country possesses at present and could develop, fitting in with whatever decision may be taken? This morning's newspapers confirm that a decision has been taken at NATO level to postpone a decision on AWACS for six months. I do not necessarily regret that. It may be a very sensible decision to have taken. But the House must agree that we have now reached a point where a clear statement of the Government's attitude is necessary.
Here I talk more or less directly to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State, because so far all he has been able to tell us is that it is a very difficult problem. We believe him. We do not dissent. We already know that. We had got that far and would like to go further. We feel we have a right to be taken into the Government's confidence.
If this very difficult problem is one about which they have no desire to make any contribution in debate across the Floor of the House—the right hon. Gentleman indicates assent to the idea that this should be debated. In that case, I hope he will start by taking an early opportunity to make a full statement on which informed debate can be founded, because it is a most important matter involving very large sums of money and major questions of future capability; and I have no doubt many of my hon. Friends will be speaking at greater length on the subject later in the debate.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Before he leaves the question of Nimrod and its various uses, will my hon. Friend say whether he has seen a statement reported at noon today by Admiral Hill-Norton on behalf of NATO pointing out the extreme shortage of facilities for the protection of our merchant shipping, particularly round the Cape route, in which, of course, this is an extremely useful aircraft? That must not be overlooked.

Mr. Onslow: I know of Admiral Hill-Norton's anxiety on this score and my hon. and gallant Friend will also know that it is one which is not necessarily confined to this side of the Atlantic, because I seem to recall having recently read a very clear exposition in the American

Air Force Review of the vital importance of maintaining a capability to defend Western interests outside the narrow central European front. The distinguished American General who wrote the article in question was quite specific in saying we could find the whole situation crumbling round our ears if we concentrated all our attention on the European land mass and a possible confrontation on the East-West German border, and allowed Soviet forces a free run on our flanks which would set up a stranglehold from which we could not recover.
I want next to come to a question which I believe is the most important before us today so far as the Air Force is concerned—the multi-role combat aircraft, or the MRCA as it has so long been called. Although the Government now want us to call it the Tornado instead, I shall continue to speak of it as the MRCA and I believe Ministers and others will go on calling it that for some years. I am delighted to see that I carry the Minister with me on that. What a remarkable day it is!
The crucial rôle of the MRCA has been constantly emphasised by Ministers and commentators on defence matters and by the Government's defence advisers in public statements. We know that without the MRCA there can be virtually no credible air contribution to NATO by this country and that the absence of the MRCA would do far-reaching damage to the air contribution of our West German partners and to the capability of the Italian Air Force. But in asking for a full statement today I must go beyond expressing my concern about the mention of a cut of one-third in the planned rate of deliveries, in paragraph 64, Chapter 1.
On the underlying politics of the matter, I put bluntly to the Under-Secretary the question: what happens to the MRCA if the next Italian Government pulls out? The national split on the project is Britain 40 per cent., West Germany 40 per cent., Italy 20 per cent. What are we to do with 80 per cent. of an aircraft if the Italians decide to pull out? And it could well be that the complexion of the next Italian Government, and the pressures to which they feel themselves subject, are such that they decide they cannot go ahead?
Is there a contingency plan that would enable the project to be completed by ourselves in co-operation with the West Germans? From the expression on the Minister's face I do not feel I am going to get an answer to that question, but that does not stop me from pressing it, because if there is no contingency plan, there will be absolutely no alternative but to turn to the Americans and buy something else instead. Such a decision would have very serious consequences industrially, financially and in all kinds of other ways, not least in terms of employment in this country, and in Germany—and in Italy too, where a great many jobs are also tied up in the MRCA. While I sincerely hope we can continue to rely on the full co-operation of our Italian partners in a project which is absolutely critical to the whole capability of NATO, which must recognise that there is a powerful Communist element in Italy which takes a view which is critical of NATO itself. I hope very much we can get an answer on that.
Incidentally, on the subject of new aircraft, I hope we can have some hint from the Under-Secretary on what is happening about the replacement requirement for the Harrier and Jaguar, mentioned by the Chief of Air Staff in a speech before Christmas which the Minister has problably seen and on which the House is entitled to some information. The Chief of Air Staff said this was a matter which was being closely studied. Some of us may think the answer is actually to replace the existing Harrier with a rather better Harrier and not go too far down the path of committing ourselves to something totally new and speculative.
Earlier I quoted another speech of the Chief of Air Staff, and to this I return. At Eastbourne on 15th May the very distinguished serving officer who is to be the next Chief of Defence Staff made a remarkable speech at the annual conference of the Royal Air Force Association, from which I quote the following passage:
The pace of the Russian military build-up is alarming. You must have seen and heard plenty about their naval build-up and probably quite a lot about their army build-up, but the build-up of Russian air power is just as significant if not more so. Russia is building no less than 1,800 military aircraft each year—that is enough to replace our whole

front line every six months or so. Well over half these are high performance combat aircraft, and more than 800 of them are of the very latest types—aircraft which are distinctively more offensive in character and capability than their predecessors.
Russia is spending more on military research and development than the whole of the Western World put together. So we must expect in the future to be faced not only with forces of increasing strength and of increasing capability, but also almost probably by some alarming technological achievements. While Russia builds up her military strength we, and not just this country but many of our Allies too, have been reducing our defences steadily since 1957. And our air power has been reduced much more severely than either our strength at sea or on land.
But the importance of air power is not reducing; on the contrary it is increasing.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Andrew Humphrey went on to say:
If the quality of the Air Force is good, its quantity must give us a great deal to worry about ".
I remind the House that this was a public speech by the Government's most senior adviser in this field, who is about to become their most senior adviser on all defence matters, as he is to be the next CDS. It comes on top of the public statements by other equally eminent serving officers.
The present Chief of Defence Staff, Field-Marshal Sir Michael Carver, has said our defences have been cut to "absolute bedrock"—a phrase which the Secretary of State much dislikes. Admiral Sir Terence Lewin has reminded us vividly of our weakness at sea, and another very distinguished airman, Air Chief Marshal Sir Denis Smallwood said on television on 19th May:
The RAF has reached its minimal figure now".
It is a unique situation when senior officers of all three Services are sounding a public alarm about the state of our defences, the way the balance has moved against us and the increasing threat we face. The Government have done their best to throw dust into the eyes of the public on these matters, and, I suppose it is understandable that they should do so, particularly when one asks where the Labour Party stands on defence.
We are all familiar with the kind of amendments moved by Tribune Group Members below the Gangway opposite in defence debates. They make a powerful case for the proposition, without


necessarily using these exact words, that they would sooner be red than dead. It is a proposition which might be more effective were it not for the fact that we are fairly sure that most of them are red already.
However, I do not wish to dwell on that, especially as none of them appears to be here for this debate. I want, instead, to refer to the "Labour Programme for 1976", a remarkable document printed in full in Labour Weekly on 26th May. Under Defence, which comes 16th in the order of political priorities, it is seriously proposed that the Labour Party should commit itself to gutting two of the three Services—for it is a fact that the proposals relating to each of the Services would effectively gut them: and the assumption in the document is that the Labour Party will not be content unless it guts two of the three Armed Forces of the Crown.
Ministers may do their best to put up dust again today, but they may be forced to stand on this document at the next General Election if they wish to remain members of the Labour Party.

Mr. William Rodgers: Not me, mate.

Mr. Onslow: I am delighted to hear the Minister of State's robust words, but we shall have to judge him when the time comes. Saying "Not me, mate" must be taken a little further if it is to become, as it should, "Not in my manifesto, thank you very much".
Labour Weekly is in the Library, but the Secretary of State's reply to the proposition advanced by the Labour Party's National Executive Committee is not there. That is not my fault. I asked in a Question on 21st May for the reply to be put in the Library, but received a very dreary answer that it was not normal practice to publish in the Official Report correspondence between a Minister and the General Secretary of the Labour Party.
I had hoped the Secretary of State would also be more robust in these matters, and would not choose to hide behind the skirt of precedent. But if he will not tell us what was in his reply, I hope somebody else will. We do not want to have to rely on leaks. We want the full text of the reply in good time for a full debate.
Normal practice or not, this will not do when we have the policy-forming machine of the Government, which has the privilege of running this country, seriously suggesting propositions which would have the effect of leaving us defenceless. Normal practice be damned—let us have this out.
I hope the Under-Secretary of State will respond. I do not care how blunt his language is. We already know that the Government are committed to cuts in defence which will total at least £6,000 million between 1975–76 and 1983–84. Indeed this is an obvious underestimate because the figures for 1980–81 to 1983–84 are clearly understated. It is not surprising that nobody has any confidence in the Government's defence policy.
And what happens when these ridiculous propositions are advanced in Labour Party documents? Ministers are told they can agree to differ. The Prime Minister says dismissively "There, there, children. Go and play, do not bother me now. We shall come back to that later." But this is not said with a sense of reproof or with a firm denial that such a proposition could ever be the policy of the Labour Government. It is not surprising that both at home and abroad there is a total absence of confidence in the Government's attitude to defence.
If the Labour Party is not willing to declare its long-term stance, we can and will. We have made our attitude clear. I do not hesitate to repeat it, because repetition is the stuff of politics. I repeat with pleasure the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) on 19th May, speaking not far from here, when he said:
It is therefore the firm policy of the Tory Party that we will strengthen our defences when we return to power. This is a necessity and we will strengthen our defences because we believe that the defence of our country and the defence of freedom come first and are far, far more important than anything else.
That statement represents the considered and united policy of the party to which I am proud to belong. It corresponds with the wishes of the vast majority of people of this country, whatever their age and status, and it corresponds to the desires of our allies and millions of other people outside this country who depend upon our defences for their security.
It is also the most important and practical way of proving our sincerity and showing that we really mean what we say when we pay tribute, as I do now, to the work of the men and women in the Armed Forces of the Crown and, on this occasion in particular, to those of the Royal Air Force.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
1. Education (Scotland) Act 1976
2. Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 1976
3. Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976
4. Atomic Energy Authority (Special Constables) Act 1976

Orders of the Day — THE ROYAL AIR FORCE

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

4.59 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. James Wellbeloved): I hope the House will bear with me if I make one or two personal observations on my first appearance at the Dispatch Box.
I am sure that hon. Members opposite will be pleased to know that, since taking office, I have embarked on a whole series of visits to stations and units to see at first hand the RAF in operation and to familiarise myself with the practical considerations which affect the day-to-day work of the Service. My first impressions have been very good. I take this opportunity of paying tribute to the personnel of the Air Force whom I have met, who in peace as well as in war discharge their arduous duties with great courage and determination.
I have been profoundly impressed by the professional skill and dedication of all the personnel I have met. They are men and women from all walks of life who have one thing in common—namely, a commitment, freely and voluntarily undertaken, to serve in the Armed Forces and

to defend our freedom under the control and guidance of a democratically elected Government and Parliament.
Although by far the youngest of the three Services, the RAF has a fine record. It has played a significant and vital rôle in this country's defence. With the new developments in the capability of aircraft and their weapon systems, the Air Force is as important now as it was in the Second World War. In the event of hostilities the RAF will be called upon, in co-operation with our allies, to defend these islands against attack from the air and sea, to co-operate with the Royal Navy in keeping open the lines of communication and reinforcement from North America, and to support our Army in the field and undertake offensive operations against any enemy.
The RAF can undertake these tasks rapidly and effectively. That it can do this involves the patience and understanding of many people throughout the country who live close to RAF stations and in areas where low flying is frequently practised. No doubt that is a subject that will be taken up in today's debate.
I now turn to one or two of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). He made particular reference to the speech of the Chief of the Air Staff. When he quoted the passage from page 9 of the transcript of the CAS's speech, he may inadvertently have given a slightly different emphasis to the words that the CAS used than was, I am sure, intended. When he quoted
It is nonsense to talk as though further reductions could be made in support areas without damaging our operational capability
the impression may have been gained that the CAS was talking about the reductions which have already formed part of the defence review in respect of the support facilities of the Royal Air Force, but clearly the CAS was talking about further reductions in that area.
I agree with the CAS that it would be nonsense to believe that there could be further substantial reductions in support facilities without affecting the operational capability of the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Will the Minister say what he means by "substantial"?

Mr. Wellbeloved: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will contain his impatience, I hope in the course of my remarks to deal with a great number of matters, and no doubt at some stage the point he has raised will receive my attention.
The CAS's speech was very significant in many other respects. In another passage he said:
In every respect air power is more potent, more effective, more significant that it was in the past. Our defence, our future security, depends today at least as much on it, on the capability of the Air Force, as it ever did. But somehow we have grown shy of talking about air power, about the critical importance of the Air Force in our defences. We must put this right because, as I have said, the Air Force has been reduced much more severely than the other Services in the defence cuts since 1957, and, while the financial situation remains as serious as it is, we cannot rule out the possibility of further pressure for cuts in defence expenditure.
I have quoted that section of his speech for two reasons. First, I want to make it clear to the House and to those who serve in the RAF that it is nonsense, if I may pray in aid some of the CAS's language, to try to build up an impression that the state of the Royal Air Force today is the responsibility of the present Government. As the Chief of the Air Staff made clear to the RAF Association, the cuts have gone on in the Air Force since 1957. There was a time when the Air Force, under a Conservative Administration had virtually no air defence capability in the United Kingdom. I am not prepared in this debate or in any other to accept criticism of the Government, who have replaced and regained a capacity for the country to be defended in the air.

Mr. Onslow: May I help the hon. Gentleman to remove himself from the dilemma on which he seems to be placing himself? I did not leave out any words about 1957. In fact, in the passage I quoted at length there is reference to that period. If the hon. Gentleman wants to have a debate on responsibility for events since 1957 and on the effect upon the Air Force and the other Services of the annual Budget cuts introduced by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the previous Labour Government, let us have one, but do not let him try to put the responsibility upon the Conservative Party when he knows full well where it rests.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I hope that when the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow he will acquit me of seeking to misquote him. I said that he may have given the impression in his first quotation from the CAS's speech that the CAS was implying something which in my view he did not seek to imply.
My second reason for quoting the CAS's speech is that we cannot rule out, as the CAS said, the possibility of further pressures for cuts in defence expenditure. Nobody in his right mind could dissent from that. Our ability to maintain our defence capacity depends on our ability to maintain our economic stability. If we fail in that we shall fail in many other matters as well.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to "Labour's Programme 1976". I hope he will forgive me for dealing with the more controversial matters that may lie between us so early in my speech. I want to proceed in due course to the serious factors of the debate without being distracted by the more partisan political aspects introduced by the hon. Gentleman at the tail end of his speech.
I read with great interest the copy of Labour Weekly that set out the programme for 1976. Section 16 is only one of 23 sections in the paper. The hon. Gentleman may like to cast his eye upon other sections with regard to Section 16. In the first column of the second paragraph he will note the words:
Within an alliance, it seems reasonable that the contribution made by each member should be related to its economic capacity.
That is absolutely in conformity with the Government's policy. If the hon. Gentleman turns to the second column he will find at the top the words:
Military and political strength is ultimately founded on economic security.
Is there anyone who would deny that? If the hon. Gentleman casts his eye to the bottom of the third column, just before the big black blodge and
Level of savings",
he will see the words:
While the work of the Study Group is not yet complete, we set out in the following interim report our tentative findings as a basis for discussion within the Party.
I should not like anyone who reads the hon. Gentleman's speech to be under the impression that the document to which he has referred—"Labour's Programme


1976"—is any more than it sets out to be—namely, a basis of discussion in a democratic party to determine the policies that it will pursue and that it may or may not put to the electorate in a General Election.
The hon. Gentleman was somewhat critical of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence for not placing in the Library private correspondence between himself and the General Secretary of the Labour Party. I do not think there is anything improper in that. If the hon. Gentleman goes to any newsagent and coughs up 10p—I am sure that all good newsagents stock good newspapers—and takes this week's copy of Labour Weekly, he will find in the centre page that there is no hesitation on my right hon. Friend's part in making clear to his political colleagues in the Labour Party throughout the country his full evaluation of the interim report of the study group. On a personal note, I am more impressed by my right hon. Friend's contribution than by any other recent contribution I have read on this matter.

Mr. Onslow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for telling us where we may find that set out in full. Why the publication cannot be placed officially in the House of Commons Library so that it is available to us all, I do not know. It should be placed on record that copies are available in the Library. If there is a shortage of copies I will go in with the hon. Gentleman in buying one.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I shall save the hon. Gentleman 10p by seeing that copy of Labour Weekly is deposited forthwith in the Library, in the hope that some hon. Members may improve their understanding of these matters by reading our weekly political journal.

Mr. Robert Banks: Will the Minister point to any sentence he can find in the Labour Party programme which refers to the threat which we face?

Mr. Wellbeloved: Yes, quite a lot refers to the threat. When I have placed the current issue of Labour Weekly in the Library the hon. Gentleman will be able to see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spells out in great detail—as I intend to do as I proceed

through my brief remarks—the threat which confronts the free world.

Mr. Banks: rose—

Mr. Wellbeloved: I do not intend to jump up and down with the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks). He will make his own speech should he be successful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in catching your eye.
Having dealt with the more partisan aspects of the debate, I turn to the defence review and its effect on the RAF. The review was conducted in such a way as to avoid any significant reduction in the Royal Air Force's front-line capability. The savings made have been largely in the support area, in such fields as support helicopters and training and communications aircraft. Reductions in our overseas commitments and the RAF withdrawal from Gan and Singapore have allowed us to make the Transport Force smaller. At home, the RAF has given up a number of stations and is regrouping on larger, more cost-effective sites.
I think it is true to say that, by and large, everyone now acepts that, in the situation we were faced with, the outcome of the defence review was both timely and right.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Does the Minister agree that, however difficult it may be to justify reductions in the support elements, it is totally impossible to defend the transfer of the RAF maintenance units from Aldergrove to St. Athan without a convincing reason?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I accept the hon. Gentleman's sincere concern about that transfer. I shall address myself briefly to it later in my speech.
There were further cuts in projected defence expenditure as a result of the public expenditure exercise last year. The background to this is well known. The whole exercise was aimed at releasing resources to the areas of export and investment to enable industry to take full advantage of the upswing in the world economy. The cuts were widespread, their impact was severe and defence had to play its part.
There is general recognition of the validity of my right hon. Friend the Secretary


of State's statement to the House that we must judge the resources that we put into our defence in relation to the threat, and against the strength of our economy. Defence is not an exact science and judgments will continue to play a dominant rôle. But my view is that we are now at a general level where our capabilities are about equal to our commitments and ability in the present economic climate.
The Defence White Paper has already detailed the Public Expenditure Survey Committee cuts as they affect the RAF. There will be a change in the composition of the Transport Force by withdrawing the Belfast squadron and substituting VC10s and Hercules. We believe that this will enable us to make more economical use of the fleet and yield useful savings without any significant detriment to our reinforcement plans. We shall make savings from organisational changes, including the merger of Support and Training Commands and from economies in spares and engineering support—partly through improved provisioning methods, and works expenditure.
I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). The painful decision to close the RAF Maintenance Units at Aldergrove and Sydenham in April 1978 has already been taken. Much has been said already about the closure of Sydenham and Aldergrove and there is little I can add to what was said in the debate in the House on that subject on 20th March. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern.
On the general question of the loss of job opportunities, the point is worth making that it simply is not true to suggest that the defence budget can be slashed again and again without any effect on the livelihood of many thousands of men and women. If anyone doubts that, I suggest that he asks the workers whose jobs have disappeared or will disappear as the decisions on defence reductions become operative.
This whole question of the effect on jobs and job opportunities is not new, but it is very much in the forefront of our argument over defence at the moment. For my part I think it is naive to believe that a sudden, massive shift of resources

away from defence could be handled without enormous disruption of people's lives and the loss of many thousands of jobs. Moreover, the implications this would have on our capability to defend ourselves, and on our standing in the world, do not even bear contemplating.
Let me take one example. The MRCA project is the largest single component in the RAF's current re-equipment programme, and the aircraft will eventually replace five aircraft types now in service —Vulcans, Canberras, Buccaneers, Phantoms and Lightnings—all aircraft which, having already been in service for a number of years, must before long reach the end of their useful operational lives.
The MRCA is a fundamental part of our post Defence Review force structure and the aircraft, from their bases in the United Kingdom and Germany, will be employed entirely on NATO priority tasks. With two other NATO countries —Germany and Italy—also operating the same aircraft type, there will be considerable benefits in terms of interoperability, commonality of training and reduced logistic support.
Good progress is being made with the negotiations with our partners on entering into the production phase, and it is hoped that agreement will soon be reached. The MRCA development programme is going well. Since the beginning of May, six prototype Tornados have completed a total of 64 hours flying, making a total of just over 430 flying hours. I intend to use the description "Tornado".
When the production go-ahead is given, we shall also enter into full development of the air defence variant of the MRCA, a national version of the common aircraft, designed as a replacement for the RAF's Phantom and Lightning air defence aircraft.
Before taking the decision to develop this version, a most stringent review was made of all the alternatives, including a study of the likely rôle of surface-to-air missiles as an alternative to aircraft for air defence, and the possibility of buying other aircraft. However, the review confirmed that, taking into account the operational, financial and industrial


factors concerned, the MRCA ADV version would be the best solution to our requirements.
This is by far the biggest single programme ever undertaken by the United Kingdom aerospace industry, and already about 14,000 jobs have been created. At the peak of production this will rise to about 24,000 directly involved in the programme and a further 12,000 employed indirectly. The programme will involve over 100 major sub-contracting firms.
In the context of employment, it is perhaps worth mentioning at this juncture that just over half the aircraft industry is dependent on military work.
The MRCA programme is, of course, just one example of the British Government's firm intention to continue to support NATO in its efforts to preserve the military balance.
The extent to which the Warsaw Pact's military capability continues to increase can only be a source of grave concern to the United Kingdom and other NATO Governments. During the last year we have seen some further widening of the disparities in manpower and equipment between the Warsaw Pact and the NATO Alliance. In addition to improvements in ground forces, the Soviet Union has enhanced its maritime capability and new ships are now under construction capable of carrying vertical and short take off and landing aircraft. In addition, the Soviet naval air force has, with the introduction of the Backfire supersonic medium bomber, the capability of reaching the North Atlantic sea routes. Warsaw Pact air forces and missile systems are being improved and Soviet tactical air forces modernised with variable geometry aircraft with greater ranges and payloads than the aircraft they are replacing. The expansion of the Warsaw Pact Air Forces, both in quantity and quality, must remain a major concern to those charged with the responsibility of maintaining the security of our people.
It is against this background that it remains one of the most urgent tasks of the Governments of the NATO Alliance to take measures to strengthen their collective defences.
For a number of years—and particularly in response to the increased con-

ventional capability of the Warsaw Pact —successive Governments have recognised the need to strengthen our front-line air defence squadrons. This need remains. At present we have nine squadrons of air defence aircraft. Seven are based at home and two are based in Germany. Planned improvements announced in recent White Papers include the transfer of Phantoms to the air defence rôle, the run-on part of the existing Lightning force alongside the Phantoms and the introduction of the Victor K2 tanker. We have begun the deployment of Bloodhound and Rapier surface-to-air missiles and we are planning major improvements to the early warning systems as well as an aircraft shelter programme to improve our capability to operate under enemy air attack.
The Government have, as I have mentioned, given their approval for the full development of the Air Defence Variant of the MRCA, and we are examining, with our NATO Allies, the best way of meeting our requirement for an airborne early warning aircraft to replace the Shackleton. Later this year we shall be introducing the Hawk into service to replace the Gnat, and the Hunter as a fast jet training aircraft, and this will be followed by the Sea King Search and Rescue helicopter which will replace some of the RAF's Whirlwinds. We shall introduce the Tornado-MRCA at the beginning of the 1980s which will bring about a substantial improvement to the qualitative strength of the RAF's front line.

Mr. Onslow: It sounds as if the Minister is leaving the subject of the MRCA. May I remind him of my question about a contingency plan. All he has said about the importance of the MRCA, underlines the importance of a contingency plan in case something goes wrong.

Mr. Wellbeloved: In all our negotiations with other Governments we take on those dealings in good faith and in the hope that they will be successfully concluded. Nothing which has yet come to my Department leads me to believe that the position with the MRCA will be other than that. No responsible Government could see such a major development as the MRCA fall to the ground.
It is not my responsibility to proceed into that area at this time.
As far as offensive air effort is concerned, we have seen major advances in enemy defensive systems notably in radar and anti-aircraft missiles, and the most effective counter in war would be high speed-low level attack as close to the ground as possible. All major air forces recognise the need for this low level capability and in addition aircraft may have to fly very low in support of the forces on the ground.
Low level flying is an exacting technique, and once aircrew have become proficient they must keep in constant practice. My predecessor spoke in this debate last year on this very difficult subject. There is little I can add to what he said except to say that of course I recognise that the activity of low level military flying does not meet with everyone's approval and regrettably does cause some disturbance to local communities and individuals. In the wider context I consider it rather ironic that I have received representations from hon. Members opposite who wish, on the one hand, to see low flying curtailed, or completely stopped, in their constituencies, but yet seek, or have sought, safeguards on the jobs some of their constituents have in support of the Defence effort.
I turn to the particular point raised by the hon. Member for Woking on the accident rate and its relationship to fuel economy. He may be aware that within a few days of my taking office there was a fatal accident in the RAF. Naturally I have given considerable attention to this matter, because it is not part of my intention to allow gallant young men to lose their lives unnecessarily while training in the RAF. I have taken particular care on all visits to particular commands to acquaint myself with the realities of the situation.
I can assure the hon. Member that it is absolutely wrong to suggest that defence economies expressed in the form of fuel restrictions are having an adverse effect on the training of air crew and flying safety. The Royal Air Force has a fuel economy target of 10 per cent. compared with the year before the fuel crisis, but the achievement of that target has not been at the expense of training

Standards or operational effectiveness. No flying training syllabus has had to be altered on account of the fuel economies.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of low flying, has he taken sufficient account of the development of the infantry anti-aircraft missiles and other weapons which surely would change these tactics somewhat? What is the point of having low-level support when there are missiles which can do the job without aircraft at all?

Mr. Wellbeloved: That is an interesting point, but all those who are professionally qualified in these matters are quite convinced that low flying is an absolute necessity for the defence and strike capability of the RAF.
But returning to the point about accidents, we must rest content that the RAF and the ministerial team in that Department are quite satisfied that the fuel economies do not have any affect at all on the situation.

Mr. Onslow: I am grateful for what the Minister has said. I hope that we can have a general reassurance on the whole subject, and of course we all hope that there will be no repetition of this tragic accident.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Turning to the topic of energy conservation in general, the Ministry of Defence is a large user of energy and it is right that it should make a contribution to the national effort through fuel saving measures which can be sustained in the longer term without adversely affecting the capability of the Services.
Where worthwhile economies would result from such measures as reduced flying, alterations to programmes are being sought, but not at the expense of operation effectiveness. The hon. Member for Woking will, I hope, accept what I say and be assured that economies come a long way behind the risking of pilots' lives and those of the rest of the community.
These annual debates on the Armed Forces are vitally important, and it is right that Parliament should give its most careful attention to the state of the nation's defences.
Peace, freedom and security are not gifts bestowed by nature upon mankind. They are obtained and maintained by courage, determination, and the support of informed public opinion.
But we have to recognise that our power rôle in world affairs has dramatically changed over the last 30 years and that world economic and monetary trends have confronted us with many difficult decisions.
It is worth reminding ourselves now and again of a fundamental fact that is often obscured in the heat and sometimes brutal thrust of political debate—that it was to ensure that argument and debate on the great issues of the day should be the hallmark of our free democratic society that men and women in both peace and war have suffered and died.
In terms of expenditure of resources on defence, a lavish, extravagant defence posture would be foolish. But conversely, to expend too little on the real security needs of our country could be catastrophic because it would put at risk our most cherished possession—the freedom to determine the destiny of our country through the ballot box.
I believe that the Government, with the knowledge that is available to them, and in the light of the present economic constraints have got the balance just about right, and I commend the policy to the House and the country.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Neil Macfarlane: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) in wishing the Under-Secretary the best of good fortune in his office and congratulating him on his recent appointment. I fear that one of the most important tasks facing him in his period of office will be to adress himself to the morale of the Royal Air Force. I want to confine my contribution in this debate immediately to this particular aspect, rather as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking did from the Front Bench, in the early part of his speech.
I want to consider the rôle of the air Service man himself, the person who is the most important constituent of the Royal Air Force. It was suggested to me a few weeks ago by a former and recently retired serving officer that now-

adays the average airman tends to regard his career in perhaps more materialistic terms than did his predecessors in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. He is not so likely therefore to be motivated to the extent that they were by such things as loyalty to the Service and the desire for the RAF family atmosphere. But this change has not been due entirely to sociological factors. One important reason for the shift was the military salary initiated in the late 1960s and implemented in 1970 by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in his former Cabinet responsibility.
The military salary changed the rôle of air Service men substantialy by providing that all Service men were to be compared, via job evaluation, with similar jobs in civilian life, and that Service pay was to be based upon that comparison. The hitherto totally separate environment of air Service men began to merge with that of the civilian, even though the environment of each was totally different, and that encouraged the Service man to become his own subjective judge of the relative values of civilian careers and Service employment.
How does a member of the Royal Air Force acknowledge the value of his security of employment at the moment? He must think that the RAF has suffered a great deal more than the other two Services in the recent defence reviews, and he must draw the conclusion that the reviews are bound to implement compulsory redundancy programmes. He must reflect also that the general shrinkage of RAF establishments at home and abroad is bound to affect him sooner or later. This must be bad for the morale of the Service man, and we must bear in mind that the airman can draw no bonuses from working long or extra hours as can be done on the shop floor. The only rewards he can expect come by promotion, and that may take years, or it might never come.
Then there is the question of family disruption. RAF families perhaps suffer more than the other arms and over a 20-year span of career can expect disruption about every two years—perhaps a little more or a little less. This involves regular uprooting from friends, schooling problems with youngsters and difficulties with wives attempting to pursue their own careers. All this is part of the background of difficulty for the modern day air


Service man, and the great carrot of yesteryear which tended to minimise domestic disruption—the overseas tour—is yet another shrinking aspect of RAF life.
House purchase in the RAF is a great administrative problem, and once again the RAF seems to suffer more than the Army or the Royal Navy. For many years the Navy has actively encouraged and helped its Service men to buy houses of their own, especially in the great seaport catchment areas, so that families are left in secure and familiar surroundings when the husband goes abroad or to sea. The Army is generally concentrated in large garrison areas and relies generally on the unit moving in its entirety from one barracks to the next. The Royal Air Force, however, operates in smaller numbers and is fairly widely spread. It is often of necessity fairly remote from civilian families and resources. So for operational efficiency it has been RAF policy to base its townships—mainly married quarters—on the airfield, in other words, "over the shop".
It is sad to note that the only reference to assisted house purchase in the 1976 Statement on Defence Estimates is a small paragraph on page 67 which refers only to the Royal Navy scheme which has been expanded over the last two years. There is no mention of any such scheme for airmen. I hope that the Minister will make a reference to the tri-Service assisted house purchase scheme and bring some positive action to help those serving RAF personnel who cannot for a variety of reasons enter into house purchase.
One of the principal feelings of concern among airmen is that they feel trapped. They have felt honour-bound to reside in the RAF community and on retirement have found that inflation has eaten into their savings and that they have missed the chance to buy their own homes. These days terminal gratuities will not bridge the gap.
There is no doubt that many senior serving airmen are worried at the prospect facing them. In recent years it has been the tendency for younger men, having watched these problems, to buy their own homes unassisted if they can afford them. Of course, with this comes

a welcome morale booster in the form of all-round stability for the family. There is stability of education for the children and employment for the wives over a long period becomes a reality. The crunch may come when the father has to go overseas on a new posting, but the financial arrangements can be infinitely to his advantage if he chooses to live on the station as a single man.
I understand that the Finance Act works adversely in this respect for the serving officer who moves his family into married quarters. The Inland Revenue in recent months has begun creating confusion, anxiety and hardship by ruling that the married man who occupies married quarters and thus pays rent is deemed to be living at his principal residence and is thus not entiled to claim mortgage interest relief on the house he is buying himself. I do not think that the RAF and the Government have awakened to this change in living patterns for the officers and men in the RAF, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to initiate a better form of assisted house purchase scheme so that RAF personnel do not suffer.
I turn now to the large-scale redeployment of training units which is going on or has been implemented. The problems I mentioned a few moments ago plus this aspect of change must be affecting morale. The last year or two have been a time of change for the RAF. There is the new pattern of pilot training begun in 1974. There are also planned changes in training for air crew which will take effect later this year. The Central Flying School is now fragmented throughout the country. Perhaps the Minister will refer to these matters when he replies to the debate. He knows that the Headquarters and Jet Provost element is now installed at the RAF College at Cranwell. The Gnat and Bulldog elements are moving to RAF Valley and RAF Leeming respectively, and the helicopter element of the school which is now at Tern Hill will be moving shortly to RAF Shewbury in the autumn of this year. It is important that the Minister should deal with what may be excessive fragmentation of the Central Flying School.
My one overriding apprehension and concern over the Government's defence review is the shrinkage of the RAF. Cost


effectiveness is one thing, but the over-pruning of our military resources is another and serious matter. Paragraph 64 on page 25 of the review in the section dealing with defence and detente makes grim reading for many of us on the Conservative Benches. It must make grim reading in respect of our commitment to CENTO and NATO but, worst of all, I am concerned about Royal Air Force morale. That is the most critical aspect of the review. It is something to which the Minister ought to turn his attention.
While I accept the economic argument which the Minister made cogently, there is, none the less, deep apprehension on this side of the House. The review refers to the Air Transport Force being reduced by half and the size of the Support Helicopter Force being reduced by half. Generally speaking there is a lot of shrinkage in the RAF. I hope that when the Minister replies he will refer to some of the matters which I have raised.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I would like to follow the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) in one matter. That concerns the way in which warrant officers do not have the same rights of commutation of pension as officers. This is an issue which a Labour Government, in particular, ought to look at again. The Minister for the Army knows that I have raised with him in great depth the case of WO1 Gradwell, late of West Lothian, now in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
I ask both Service Ministers to reflect once again whether something which is done, no doubt for honourable reasons, but perhaps a bit paternalistically in the 1970s, should be an ongoing matter of policy. Warrant officers, sergeants and other ranks have given the Ministry of Defence some good reasons why they should commute pensions and I do not see why they should be discriminated against simply because they are not officers and therefore, by innuendo, somehow are less responsible. I realise that Ministers have been acting under very good motives. That is not denied, but it is something which should be looked at.
Shortly after my hon. Friend arrived at his desk he will have received a long letter from me—an early warning, to use RAF parlance, and a forewarning—that in this, my 13th speech in 14 seasons on RAF Estimates, I would devote myself to one topic, namely, a separate Scottish Air Force—a Tartan Air Force.
I regard this matter as no joke because I have no doubt that there is a serious possibility of the Scottish National Party obtaining political power. In that case, independence negotiations would begin and they are committed, as I understand it, to a Scottish Army, a Scottish Navy and a Scottish Air Force. We must therefore give some attention to this matter.

Mr. Donald Stewart: rose—

Mr. Dalyell: I will not give way just yet. Of course, I concede straight away that a small country can have an air capability. I concede that a separate Scottish Air Force may not be as difficult and impractical as a separate Scottish Army or Navy. The difficulties may not be quite as great.

Mr. Donald Stewart: If other countries with a smaller population and a smaller land area than Scotland can have separate defence forces, why does the hon. Member, apart from his attitude to independence which I know well, not think that a separate Scotland ought to be able to sustain this?

Mr. Dalyell: That is a perfectly reasonable question and there are two answers to it. Of course, if one is as rich per head as the Saudis or the ruler of Dubai—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: We are.

Mr. Dalyell: We are as rich as the Saudis? I am afraid that is not the situation as I see it. Another answer is that it is one thing to build up a small air force from scratch, but it is another to hive off a Scottish sector of the RAF from an existing structured, coherent air force.
We are talking not about building up a new air force but rather the dismemberment of the RAF.
There are two basic questions which flow from this. How practical is it in


terms of operational efficiency, and what would be the financial cost?
I would take the MRCA as an example. I remember and I confirmed it in long notes I took at the meeting that when a group of us went to Munching, near Munich, to see Dr. Madelung, the programme director, I asked why the Dutch were withdrawing from the project. The answer was simply that it was because basically Holland is too small. In fact, that makes sense.
I pursued this question with Dutch colleagues in the European Parliament, with members of the Dutch Government and those who represent the Philips factories in Eindhoven who are well informed on these matters. They said that the Dutch Air Force was on such a small scale that it could not participate in this major project. I therefore ask my hon. Friend whether it is practical to have one-eight of 385—some 50 aircraft—separate in a Scottish Air Force? Does it make sense in practical and operational requirement terms? Coupled with this, what would happen supposing an independent Scotland, and the Scottish Government, opted out of the MRCA? I have a suspicion that in these circumstances orders would not go to the Cameron Iron Works at Livingstone where many constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) and I earn their bread from such contracts.
If Scotland were not participating there would be no pressure to order with Scottish industry.
What goes for the MRCA and Camerons certainly goes for Ferrantis of Edinburgh which has considerable links with Bloodhound and Rapier. The truth is that Ferrantis of Edinburgh, if any kind of independent Scottish Air Force were set up, would be seriously disadvantaged and the people who work there ought to know it. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) present and he knows a lot about Ferrantis.
Three years ago I was given the figure that the training of a pilot cost £250,000. This was for Lightning and Phantom. I understand that costs will have escalated and that the training of an MRCA pilot is nearer £500,000. The same goes for all specialist skills. But supposing one

hives off one-eighth of the RAF does it make any economic sense? What would be the cost of training an MRCA pilot in an air force of 50 MRCAs?
I see the hon. Lady for Moray and Nairn) (Mrs. Ewing) present. I went on a visit to RAF Lossiemouth five years ago. What would happen to the Nimrod capability there? I also visited St. Mawgan where I got a very full briefing and I clearly recall the whole question that spares, repairs and support have to be concentrated in one place There was a constant coming and going between Lossiemouth and St. Mawgan.
In those circumstances, does it make sense to hive off the Nimrod capability which is vital to any kind of North Sea protection? Those who talk about protection of the North Sea oil rigs ought to face the practical question that, if they are to have independent Scottish oil, presumably it is to be protected. If it is not to be protected, we should be told.
But, if it is to be protected, the long-range Nimrod surveillance aircraft is critical to any kind of task in that respect. Therefore, we should be told whether it is practical to break up the RAF in this way.
The Minister talked about and gave a list of engineering support savings.
If the SNP were to get its way and have an independent air force, there would be serious dis-savings. Therefore, I asked the Ministry of Defence during the summer to try to do a rough calculation of the dis-savings that an independent Scottish air force would involve. We have heard a lot about savings. Let us hear about the dis-savings of breaking up the RAF, and hiving off a Scottish Air Force.
Equally, I must ask a purely factual question. I read Sir Denis Smallwood's interesting speech. What would be the position of the Commander-in-Chief United Kingdom Air Forces? I understand that within the Ministry of Defence he is called the Cinukair.
I understand from senior RAF officers that the break-up of the command structure would be a difficult and expensive operation. Could the Under-Secretary write to me about this?

Mr. Macfarlane: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the period of training to


bring this supposed force up to scratch would be impossible to comprehend?

Mr. Dalyell: It is absolutely mind-boggling to those who take an interest in the nuts and bolts. I was taught by the noble Lord Wigg that if one is to talk about the Forces, one must go into the details. Therefore one asks a whole list of purely factual questions.
The answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam is that there are mind-boggling expenses. The idea of taking the Air Force apart makes no kind of financial or operational sense.
Let us be more mundane and come down to other matters. What about pension obligations? How do we disentangle them? Who will pay the Service pensions? These things matter to many people. They want to know where their entitlement is, coming from. How does one opt as between a Scottish and an English Air Force if one is born in Scotland?
I must ask the same question as I asked in the debates on the Navy and the Army. What about the separation of various specialist skills?
For example, what about the small groups of specialist maintenance engineers on Phantoms? Fortuitiously, one-eighth of them might be Scots. If not, how do we work it out? There may be great shortages or surpluses on either side. Again, dismemberment makes no sense.

Mr. Hooley: It is very jolly listening to my hon. Friend's fantasies in this fashion and quite amusing, I suppose, to fill in the debate. But is he aware that this problem had to be solved by every Commonwealth country when it became independent?

Mr. Dalyell: I do not propose to answer that question, because I resent my hon. Friend's intervention. This is no joking matter. It is serious. I am dealing with it in a serious way. It is as serious to me as the issue of South Africa is to him. My hon. Friend had better understand—I shall listen to him—that independence means independence.

Mr. Hooley: That is right.

Mr. Dalyell: Those who make the English the scapegoats for their troubles cannot expect on some cosy basis to

share the same Armed Forces. Independence means what it says.
I must say to the Members of the Scottish National Party that when they make a tremendous business of their rally at Bannockburn on 26th June, it is about one thing—anti-Englishness. Otherwise, they would not hold their rally at Bannockburn. You choose Bannockburn because it is emotive. I must also say, coolly and calmly, that when you encourage the singing of "Oh flower of Scotland "—I refer to the report in The Times by Mr. David Leigh who is very sympathetic—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr. Dalyell: Yes. I apologise for the discourtesy. I should not have forgotten. Mr. David Leigh says:
It is clearly an Anti-English song: the crowds boo the British National Anthem 
—if crowds boo the National Anthem, it is a little difficult for that country to share the same Armed Services—
which the Scottish National Party has told them is Anti-Scottish.
That is the sympathetic correspondent of The Times in London. He goes on:
Commemorating one of the last battles with the English which the Scots ever managed to win, it is a rather haunting and worrying little poem: at the end of each verse, when it describes how the Scots packed the English home tae think again', some of the crowds make rude gestures at the stand where, presumably, they think the English or at any rate the establishment to be.
I do not know whether the stand at Hampden Park is the place where the English Establishment go. That is not the issue. The issue is that there is the singing:
Oh flower of Scotland, when will we see your like again?
That fought and died for your wee bit hill and glen,
And stood against them, proud Edward's armies,
And sent them homeward tae think again.
That is all anti-English. All I am saying is that when people get to that situation, they cannot expect a cosy relationship in sharing Armed Forces. They cannot have their cake and eat it. [Interruption.]
Sedentary muttering by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart)


is all very well. But in a polite and gentle way I hope to bring the SNP up against the realities of the situation. Independence means an independent force. Therefore, it is no joke. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) has gone. This is a real prospect.
It would be wrong for me to make too long a speech, so I shall pose only two questions. One bothers me more than the other. I should like the Ministry of Defence to comment on the question of security checks. In The Times of 19th May there is the headline:
Whitehall accused of security snooping on Scottish nationalists.
The report states:
There is evidence that junior government employees in sensitive fields undergo security screening for nationalists sympathies if they come from Scotland.
The Scottish National Party, which has some relatively discreet members in the Armed Forces and the Edinburgh Civil Service, will probably be flattered by that disclosure.
There is a long evidential piece following that. Frankly, I am not in favour of those with Scottish nationalist opinions being screened. However, there should be some further comment on the Prime Minister's very proper Written Answer to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), in which, according to The Times of 27th May, he said:
no distinction was drawn between Scots and others in the process known as positive vetting'… Membership of any organisation, whether political or not, is inevitably part of the background to an individual.'
I hope that the Ministry of Defence will expand on this subject and will say exactly what is the situation, re positive vetting.
I conclude my remarks, because I have taken my allotted span of twenty minutes, by saying that those who say that they want to see the bust-up of Britain and the dismemberment of the Royal Air Force display a mind-boggling frivolity.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I feel a certain reluctance to set myself between the Highlands and the Lowlands because I feel that I may get hurt in the process. However, I must say that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) deployed a powerful case to which the sedentary grumblings from the SNP to

the effect "It will be a matter for Scotland" are not a sufficient answer.
I join in congratulating the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force on his new post. Unless my memory serves me wrongly, I believe that at one time he served in the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Wellbeloved: No. I was in the Royal Navy.

Mr. Kershaw: This place is becoming infested with sailors. No doubt the Minister's service in the Navy is reflected by the fact that he has now grown a beard. I hope that he will enjoy his term of office more than he enjoyed his days in the Royal Navy.
I want to refer to what the Minister said about RAF accidents. I appreciate that fuel economy plays no part in the accidents which have recently taken place. I know that it would be undesirable if the Minister were to give the percentage of accidents to flying hours. However, it would be possible to allay public anxiety if he were able to say that the average rate has not been increased as a result of the recent accidents about which we have all read.
The political exchanges which were so amiably conducted between my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and the Minister this afternoon were, I suppose, inevitable. They related to the question who is responsible for the present state of the RAF. Naturally, Her Majesty's Government claim that they have the answer about right—and indeed all Governments do so—but there is a tacit assumption beneath those mutual reproaches, namely, that the RAF is not strong enough; otherwise there would be no political animosity to talk about.
The first priority is the air defence of Great Britain. I am sure that the Minister is as anxious as anybody to see that we deploy the right sort of strength. We know our economic difficulties but they, like the poor, are always with us. It is a question of how much risk one thinks one can take.
I need not lecture the Minister on the strength and capability of the Russian Air Force. He will know that the Russians spend a larger percentage of their GNP on their armed forces than


we at one time suspected, and that their technical expertise is increasing. Up to the present they have been lacking in the quality of their aircraft and pilots, although not, of course, in their quantity. If it is correct that the quality has recently been steeped up, we must make a careful scrutiny of our defence systems. Indeed, I have no doubt that the Minister has already done so.
I should like now to examine the various components of our defences. Let us first take the fighter aircraft which, ranging far out from our coasts, intercept incoming aircraft, provide a swift and flexible means of identification, and, in peace and in war, warn our own defences of danger and opposing fords of our ceaseless vigilance and expertise. The Minister will not deny that our fighter forces are today the minimum which could cope with a hostile attack—and that is only in the context of a scenario which includes participation by all our NATO allies against a general attack by Eastern Powers.
It has been found recently that, for financial reasons, it is necessary to slow down production of the MRCA. I should like to know whether the Minister is satisfied that the necessarily extended life of the aircraft at present filling the defensive rôle will enable them adequately to perform that rôle in the final years of their employment. I have in mind the increased efficiency of the hostile forces and I am concerned that, just at the moment when hostile forces are becoming more efficient, we may be forced by economic considerations temporarily to reduce our efficiency, at least not to increase it.
There is another aspect of this increased capability of hostile forces. Our air defence area stretches very far to the north of these islands, and it is right that on the vulnerable northern flank of NATO it should do so. But on the western approaches the United Kingdom air defence area stretches as far as the Isle of Man southwards.
What is being done about what one may call the West-about approach of the Russion air force? The Republic of Ireland has no capability to resist the overflying of her territory by Russian aircraft. Furthermore, it is but a short

distance further for aircraft to come in from the south of Ireland over the sea. It is public knowledge that little if any air defence is deployed on our western shores. One is reminded of the guns of Singapore pointing vainly out to sea while the Japanese infantry swarmed across the Straits of Johore.
The great merit of air power is its flexibility and no doubt our fighters and interceptors could quickly switch from east to west. But adequate defence depends upon semi-static missiles and I am disturbed that so few squadrons—and those almost all in Germany—are on the strength. Surely we should have more of these missiles, and deployed in different and more places.
We must also have adequate radar—and by "adequate" I mean airborne early warning. I do not envy the Minister having to choose between the American and Nimrod systems. I recognise the financial and other difficulties. But will he bear in mind that no American or even NATO solution is likely fully to bear in mind the possibility of attack upon the United Kingdom from the west and the north-west with the same anxiety as we should, or to provide adequate capability to deal with it?
I welcome the Secretary of State's decision to go firm on the air defence variant of the MRCA. Our particular defence problems and our dependence upon sophisticated avionics over the long ranges of the Atlantic Ocean and the northern seas pose for us different problems from those which we encounter in Western Europe and demand a different type of aircraft to cope with the situation.
My next point concerns the air traffic control centre at West Drayton. The security of this building and of those working there poses in peace and in war very considerable problems. It would not be helpful for me to be more specific but I know that the Minister will inform himself—probably he has already done so—about those problems. I very much hope that he will do all in his power to remedy the obvious defects.
I turn next to the question of reserves. The reserves of all the Services have been grievously let down, partly out of a belief, which may well be mistaken, that any war would be a nuclear war and partly, in


the case of the Royal Air Force, at any rate, because it was thought that the sophistication of the equipment made it non-productive to hand that equipment to insufficiently-trained men. We may be making a great mistake. In the first place, it is clearly in the interests of Russia to confine warfare to the conventional, in which Russia is very strong, rather than to let it escalate to the nuclear, in which she will share in the general holocaust.
Secondly, I question the resolution of Western or any other leaders to launch a nuclear war, even in response to imminent defeat by conventional forces, although I welcome the uncertainty of such a decision, for the uncertainty itself is the deterrent that holds the world in balance.
The duty of our military is to prepare for the worst case—and undoubtedly the worse case, after a nuclear holocaust, is a long war in which we should soon run out of troops and equipment. It would be interesting to know how long, at projected attrition rates, the Royal Air Force is expected to fight effectively. I should be dismayed if the Minister told me the answer, but I beg him to turn his attention to reserves.
I know that reserve pilots cannot readily be given the immensely sophisticated aircraft which are used today, but there are several respects in which reserves could be useful. First, there is the RAF Regiment, which has an expert and essential rôle, but a rôle, nevertheless, which can be technically mastered without the sort of expensive training for flying an aircraft.
The defence of airfields, whether by infantry action or by missiles, can suitably be done by reserve forces. I should like to see each squadron of the RAF Regiment matched by at least one or more reserve squadrons. Such a reserve could be made up partly of immediately retired and partly of Territorial reserves, although the exact composition does not matter. I would, at any rate, be quite sure that such a fine regiment, playing so important a rôle, would have no difficulty at all in finding the necessary recruits.
Then we have the problem of using civilian aircraft to supplement the lift which RAF Transport Command can no longer prove provide. We know that BAOR will depend on an important

degree upon reinforcement by Army reserves on mobilisation. Some doubt must exist as to whether Transport Command, slimmed down as it will be, will be able to transport the necessary troops in the necessary time.
It may, therefore, be essential to use civilian aircraft. The areas into which those aircraft would fly may already be in a war zone. What are to be the arrangements for handling such a situation? What powers of requisition will Her Majesty's Government need in regard to the aircraft? What powers will they have over the pilots who alone have the expertise to fly these sophisticated machines? I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take in good time the legal and practical steps to bring the situation under control and that they will consider in particular whether bringing the pilots and the aircraft into some kind of reserve military status might be one way of dealing with the matter.
Lastly in the matter of reserves, the air-sea rescue organisation—which either gives already or will, I believe, shortly give 100 per cent. coverage of our coast —provides, I suggest, a first-class opportunity for reserve crews. Perhaps reserve crews could not be pilots—although I do not rule that out—but surely the other posts in the helicopters could be filled by reserves. They would, I am sure, respond with the greatest enthusiasm to this service, which has such a large element of immediate service to the public in peacetime, as well as being an essential in war. I do not need to point out how easily part-timers could also take their places in the RAF launches which form part of the air-sea rescue service.
I know that the Minister will resist any influence which seeks to suggest that the RAF should use anything but the best and most sophisticated equipment. If RAF capability is unable to defend against the worst attack which modern science can devise, it would be better and cheaper to go back to bows and arrows. In fact, it has been the tradition of the RAF always to go for the best, ever since the days of that great man, Lord Trenchard. We know how in 1940 it proved to be our salvation.
Today, the equipments which are the key to survival are the electronic countermeasures of all kinds, without which no amount of pilot expertise or operational


excellence can be of any avail. I earnestly ask the Minister to ensure that, whatever else has to be cut, whatever else is held back, there shall be no hold-back whatsoever in research and development in the ECM field. Unless we have what is necessary here, all our other efforts may well be brought to naught.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Bruce George: The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), when he commenced his remarks, admonished my hon. Friend the Minister on a number of counts. He said that he hoped that he would not go over the same details that had been given in so many speeches, but ironically later on he extolled the virtues of his own desire to repeat what he had said before.
When we talk about defence matters we all on both sides of the House have an obligation not to cover again and again the same points. As a relative newcomer to defence debates, I must say that in speaking in these debates and in listening to them I am reminded of John Wayne's film "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon". I have seen the film so many times that whenever I watch it I feel that I know what the actors are about to say and what the next scene will be.
I sometimes feel that the actors are always the same in the defence debates here, and are always saying the same things. In making this comment I do not wish to be disparaging. Perhaps I shall be similarly guilty before long. However, there is every indication that the form of this debate may differ on this occasion, as many hon. Members on both sides who usually contribute to these debates are absent. Perhaps there will be a rather different approach in this debate.
I draw the analogy of the film "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" also on another ground—that of sabre-rattling. We usually hear this in debates of this kind from hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Woking also said—I feel rather critical of him about this—that he had a need to shout for the benefit of the thick skulls on my side of the House. I do not know whether he meant Ministers or whether this was a general criticism. I shall read Hansard with interest in order to find out.
In the interests of fairness, and in order to show that there is no monopoly of concern, of patriotism, or of intelligence on defence matters on the Opposition Benches, the hon. Gentleman should perhaps cast his eyes on an article written by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) in the Journal NATO Review published very recently. There may be some hon. Members who have not read it.
I do not wish to set friend against friend, or to say that the hon. Member's comments on the Conservative Party are necessarily unique to that party. The criticisms can perhaps be levelled elsewhere. In his article the hon. Member states:
The Conservative Party cares about defence, but does not think very deeply about it. It is not enough, however, that we should wish to be defended, we must bend our minds to the subject … but defence must be accorded a greater intellectual priority. The hon. Member then pays the Labour Party a compliment by saying that the Conservative Party might model itself
on the Labour Party of the early sixties".
He goes on to say that
At present our opposition to the Labour Government's defence policy is shrill but unsustained.
He also says:
It is not enough to squeal every time the Government puts butter before guns. We should make better use of our supply time in the Commons".
The hon. Member may care to develop this point.
As a newcomer to defence matters, I was rather interested to read this article on his performance of his colleagues.

Mr. Julian Critchley: Will the hon. Member go on to say that there are free copies available in the Library?

Mr. George: The quality of the article is such that I am sure it could be sold at a very high price. Many hon. Members on the Government side would rush to buy it.

Mr. Macfarlane: I was most impressed with the article by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). Perhaps the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) would care to quote further from it.

Mr. George: I have read the entire article, but I would not wish to detain


the House by commenting on it in great detail.
There is always in these debates a great deal of talk about the Soviet buildup of forces, but I think that we should resort to rather more detailed analysis before making what are often rather hysterical outbursts.
In my contribution in the previous defence debate in April, I referred to a number of reputable sources which indicated that although the Soviet build-up was not inconsiderable, the so-called imbalance between NATO and the Warsaw Pact was not as grotesque as some people seek to maintain.
I quoted the defence correspondent of the Economist, and James Schlesinger, the American Secretary for Defence. I also mentioned the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which indicated that there was a Soviet build-up, but that, although there was great need for vigilance, there was no need to resort to wholesale increases in defence expenditure in these very difficult times. I earlier pointed out and wish to reiterate that there is no need to be panicked into a vast increase in expenditure on armaments because, as many people have maintained quite sensibly, our defences are adequate to meet the need. This does not mean that we should become complacent in the future, because I believe that the balance may be tilting against us.

Mr. Kershaw: Unless my ears deceived me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Gentleman referred to a "Scottish" build-up. Did he mean a Russian build-up, by any chance?

Mr. George: Did I say "Scottish"? I was not aware of doing so.
I should like to comment on a recent publication, the International Institute of Strategic Studies' "Strategic Survey 1975", published last month, in which it is stated that clearly the Warsaw Pact
has superiority according to some measures, NATO by others.
The publication goes on to say:
Overall, the balance is considered such as to make military aggression unattractive; the consequences for an attacker would be incalculable, and the risks, including that of nuclear escalation, must impose caution.

It goes on to say that we should not be too complacent but that nevertheless there is some potential danger. I am certain that the Government, from what they have said, are very aware of this.
On spending the article says
At the moment NATO actually seems to provide more financial and manpower resources than the Pact.
A table shows that the combined expenditure of the NATO alliance was $149.87 billion in 1975 while that of the Warsaw Pact was $111.37 billion. Perhaps that puts comparative spending on defence in a better perspective. It also shows that the manpower of NATO is superior to that of the Warsaw Pact. It is facile to contrast static data. One must look at it a different way to gauge the relative strengths of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. There is real concern about this matter. Some Opposition Members do our defence a disservice by pointing to the weaknesses which are more imaginary than real.
I want to add my comments to those already made on the build-up of the Soviet air force. Many Opposition Members concentrate on the build-up of the mass armour of the Warsaw Pact countries and on the build-up of the Soviet navy. But few hon. Members opposite, or indeed reputable sources, or indeed NATO, comment sufficiently on the qualitative and quantitative build-up of Warsaw Pact air power. An article in the International Defence Review in February 1976 says critically that in the West we appear to have ignored the buildup of Soviet manpower. In that article P. Borgart points out that there has been an increase in Soviet forces but he spends most of the article looking at the qualitative development in respect of engines, avionics, construction techniques, armaments and infrastructure, and says that we may have been too complacent in the 1960s when looking at the power of the Soviet air force. Whilst we have been complacent the Soviet air force has been quietly building up and the closure of the technological club must be cause for concern amongst politicians and military men.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: Does the hon. Member agree that


the Conservative Government in building the TSR2 were not being complacent but that perhaps the Socialist Government who cancelled it in the 1960s were?

Mr. George: I am sure that the arguments about that were more sophisticated, but they are now ancient. At the time I felt that the decision was correct. I repeat, a number of warnings have been given of a massive build-up of combat aircraft within the Warsaw Pact and in addition the Soviet air force is improving considerably on a qualitative level. However, one must not be too paranoid about the Soviets.
In presenting the annual Defense Department report to Congress, Donald Roumsfeld said:
There are, of course, areas in which Pact tactical aviation has made no significant improvement in recent years. Moreover, in practically every specific aspect of tactical aviation technology, Pact capabilities remain deficient relative to their United States or NATO counterparts, even though they represent substantial improvements over Pact capabilities existing as recently as the late 1960s.
When one is looking at the build-up of Soviet forces one needs to diversify and look also at the build-up of Soviet aircraft but one must bear in mind what is happening in the United States, Britain and other NATO countries and what they have been spending over the last ten years. I recognise that the primary rôle of the air force is defence and deterrence, but I seek the Minister's comments on three other issues—energy conservation, humanitarian assistance in disaster relief, and environmental considerations.
The RAF has to conserve energy like the rest of us, but could the Minister say what measures have been taken to achieve conservation and cost reduction? I understand that a number of promising measures have been introduced. What percentage increase in purchases of petroleum products has there been between 1973 and the present day? What is the proposed decrease for 1976. Of the high fuel consuming aircraft, how many have been replaced and what is the estimated cost avoidance? Has there been a reduction in flying hours and what effect has that had on conserving energy?
In America there has been a significant increase in the use of flight simula-

tors. Are we using them more? They are expensive in terms of outlay, but highly valuable and cost effective. In a statement to the Senate, Mr. J. C. McLucas, the Secretary of the Air Force, said:
Obviously, all flight training cannot be accomplished through simulation, but our investment in this area should pay extensive dividends in terms of energy conservation and cost avoidance. The resultant annual savings would build to 300,000 flying hours, 9·5 million barrels of fuel and $270 million by the middle of the next decade.
To what extent have we purchased flight simulators? What effect are they having on the efficiency of air force training? Can their use be expanded in this country?
I now turn to the rôle of the RAF in assisting in disaster relief. The RAF accepts its responsibility to assist those who suffer in foreign countries as a result of disasters, such as earthquakes or floods, and one must compliment our forces in that respect. We are all familiar with the attempts of other countries, too, to airlift food, medicines and other supplies to disaster areas. We all remember the Iran earthquake of 1968, the Pakistan floods of 1973 and the Sahel drought, to name but a very few. There are many examples of military forces being used but much more could be done by the RAF.
What attempts have been made by NATO to see if there is a rôle for it to play? I know that it might be politically sensitive for NATO to be directly involved in some areas of the world. The hon. Member for Aldershot has written an article in The Times on this, I understand.

Mr. Critchley: I put down an Early-Day Motion about three weeks ago in favour of setting up a NATO disaster relief force. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to sign it.

Mr. George: I have not yet signed the motion on child benefits but that does not imply that I do not approve of it. I shall look at the hon. Gentleman's motion.
Much more could be done by NATO. It is one problem to raise the money and get the supplies and the relief to the country that needs them. But it is another to organise the distribution of the aid


once it arrives in the country, because transport is often not available. The problems of the administration of relief are being examined in some universities, I believe, but the RAF and NATO could play a more significant rôle in assisting countries in that way. We are talking about a situation which, if not attended to within a matter of hours or perhaps a day after a disaster, could result in incalculable damage and even death to those who are affected. The problems of transportation are great and unless they are solved all the other effort involved is superfluous. I urge the Minister to consider what further action could be taken by the RAF and NATO.
I move on to a matter which may be considered as mundane by some but which is nevertheless significant. I refer to the pay award to members of the Armed Forces. The Fifth Report of the Review Body on Armed Forces pay, published in May, says of course that members of the Armed Forces are subject to the Government's pay policy, just as any sector of industry is. But I am somewhat concerned that the increases in accommodation and food charges have destroyed much of any value of the increase. Figures on page 9 of the report show that a corporal who had a £6 addition received a net amount of £3·90 after deduction of tax at the appropriate rate. The increase in total food and accommodation charges for single Service men and women was £1·61, so they do not see much of the pay rise. That must have an effect on morale, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister proposes to do about it.
The Government should not be ashamed of what they have done in defence planning. Opposition Members must realise that there is great pressure In the country for improvements of vital services such as housing, hospitals and the social services. The Government must achieve a balance and compromise. If they spend too much on defence, scarce resources will be denied to vital services. If they spend too little on defence, the costs could be incalculable to our national security.
I believe that the Government have got the balance just about right. I feel strongly—and I may not be alone in my party—that we have obligations to society as a whole and to our allies. Any signi-

ficant decrease in defence expenditure would cause incalculable harm to the alliance. I very much hope that no Government that I support would contemplate that.

6.32 p.m.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I should like to add my congratulations and those of my party to the Under-Secretary of State on his appointment. I hope that he has a happy period in his new office.
The House may know that I have two RAF bases in my constituency. There are about 4,000 men at them, though the number varies considerably from time to time. Like the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), I make visits to the bases, and I recently had the pleasure of flying in a Nimrod over the North Sea oil rigs, which I found very interesting. I also spent some hours in a simulator, which was also a very interesting experience.
Before I take up some of the challenges thrown at me, I should like to say something about welfare matters. I have been conducting a campaign to try to put across an idea concerning the rights of Service men to local authority housing. Hon. Members have made excellent suggestions about the difficulties of house purchase, with which I am extremely familiar in my constituency. The Service man often reaches the end of his Service career in my constituency. so I am deluged at surgeries with people faced with such problems. I do not want to rehearse the suggestions about house purchase. I agree with them. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he can go some way to taking up some of them.
I had an Adjournment debate on the subject of local authority housing for ex-Service men, when my suggestions were received sympathetically by the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy. In a nutshell, my proposal was that on beginning a period of service if married, or on marriage, a member of the Armed Forces should be entitled to put his name on one local authority list of his choice. That would not advantage him over other citizens. I am asking that Service men should not be disadvantaged, because an ordinary citizen is able to do that. After all,


Service men give up a great deal of their lives in the service of their country, and they should not be disadvantaged.
Under my proposal, the load would be spread over all our towns and cities. At present, there is a natural desire by Service men to stay where they are, particularly in as beautiful a constituency as I have. Many people have put down roots at the end of their service. They often have children at the local school, and they have established friendships.
The main problem is housing for those who cannot afford to buy, perhaps because of the disruptions about which we have heard. My proposal would give a boost to morale throughout their career and a feeling of security. No doubt many people would opt for the town in which they were brought up, but areas in which there are bases will always have a considerable burden. My local authorities try hard to give a fair quota to the men in question, but it can never be enough, and it causes problems with local people who are also waiting for housing.
In my Adjournment debate I was promised that a circular would be sent to local authorities on the matter. Was that circular ever sent? If not, will consideration be given to the sending of such a circular, explaining the proposal in detail? I shall not go into the detail now, because I do not want to rehearse my previous speech.
I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) that another burning issue is the pay increase. The charge for accommodation affected my Service constituents in such a way that they had virtually no benefit. That does not help morale.
I pay tribute to what the Services do in my constituency in the way of rescue operations. There is an extensive mountain rescue service, which saves many lives in a year in the adverse conditions which we often find in our Scottish mountains. In a recent accident, when a pilot had to bale out he was in the North Sea for only about three minutes, so efficient was the rescue operation.
We have a low-flying area on the Moray coast. It is suitable for low flying for various reasons—its desirable climate

and so on. I live in Lossiemouth. The people there do not complain to me about low flying. The only complaints I have had about it have been when there has been damage—for example, to piglets—when the RAF paid compensation. People are used to the low flying and do not seem particularly to mind it. If there is likely to be a great deal of it, the RAF makes local announcements, and that seems to be enough. Low flying does not seem to me to present a problem, at any rate not in my constituency.
I should now like to take up some of the challenges which the hon. Member for West Lothian threw in the direction of my party's Bench. He appears to find it genuinely puzzling that Scotland could ever aspire to have its own Forces. That was answered by his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), who pointed out that many small States, some of them very small, had achieved independence in our lifetimes. In fact, if one drew a line halfway down a list of members of the United Nations in order of size or population Scotland would be above the line: it would be one of the big ones.
Scotland, with an area of 30,000 square miles, has a population of 5,227,000. Let me take some other countries at random: Belgium, 11,780 square miles, and a population of 9 million; Austria, about the same area, and a population of 7,500,000; Denmark, about half the area, and a population under 5 million. Next we come to Norway, with a large area stretching right up to the Arctic Circle, about four times the land mass of Scotland, but with a population of just under 4 million.
Norway also has oil rigs. No one suggests that there is anything strange or impossible about her having her own armed forces. Norway is a valued member of NATO. A glance at the map will disclose that Norway has a strategically important geographical situation, as has Scotland.
Scotland is of enormous strategic importance. It guards an important submarine gap between Greenland and the Faroes. If there were ever a move—of which my party is not in favour—for an independent Scotland to be neutral, that would present the most enormous problems.
The position of the Scottish National Party has never changed. We want our own Forces in accordance with our needs, which will not be dissimilar from those of Norway. We want to be members of NATO and play our part in that Alliance. We do not envisage a neutral rôle for Scotland. That is not the policy of my party—and never has been.
It is interesting to note that Norway's strategic position is so important that Norway is a member of NATO, but without a nuclear commitment. That is the policy of my party. We are against nuclear weapons on moral grounds. Perhaps the time will come when more countries will take that stand. Norway has taken it. Canada is in the throes of taking it. No one ridicules those countries. That is Scotland's position. We wish to contribute in every way to alliances that are sensible and reasonable and around us and which contribute to the kind of idea mentioned by the hon. Member for Walsall, South, when military operations help in disaster areas.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The United Kingdom maintains Armed Forces on the basis of volunteers. Norway and some of the other nations mentioned by the hon. Lady maintain a military capability by conscription. I wonder whether she will indicate whether it is the policy of the Scottish National Party to introduce conscription so that the Scottish Forces may be as viable as those of the small nations to which she referred.

Mrs. Ewing: Not all small nations have conscription. The Minister anticipates my remarks: I am delighted to answer, for it is a fair question. We are opposed to conscription. Scotland has never made a negligible contribution to the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom. We have contributed many men, in battle and out of it, to the Armed Forces, out of all proportion to our size. The reason for that, for hundreds of years, has been the lack of employment in our country. Let us not enter that avenue.
If the Minister thinks that enough of the population of Scotland would not be delighted to serve in the Armed Forces of Scotland, he does the people of Scotland a great injustice. I do not think that the Scottish people who read the reports of this debate in Hansard will be impressed if the Minister is trying to ridicule us.
We do not want conscription in any shape or form. We have discussed this matter as a party. That is fixed party policy. We are totally opposed to conscription. We do not think that it will prove to be in the least necessary in Scotland.
The hon. Member for West Lothian spent most of his speech dealing with matters concerning the SNP. I was intrigued by his choice of song. However, there is another song that he might have sung if he had thought about the matter carefully:
Sic a parcel of rogues in a nation".
It is strange to me that the hon. Gentleman should worry about a song. A song is only as good as the people who sing it. If a song goes round a country, it does so because the people like it. Although it is often said that the Scottish National Party wishes to break up the United Kingdom, this is our policy: Commonwealth status, loyalty to the Crown. That has been the fixed policy of the SNP since 1966.
We are not breaking up the United Kingdom. We want a sovereign Parliament to secure social and economic justice for Scotland. With that goes all the responsibility. We are not only after the rights. We want responsibilities. We want the responsibility of playing our part in the alliances that are obviously sensible for the North Atlantic. We want the responsibility of helping with the kind of idea to be discussed by the EEC this week. I hope that may lead to a good plan. It has the support of all the parties in the EEC. We want the assets, the rights, the liabilities and the responsibilities.
As the hon. Member for West Lothian is so worried that we shall gain our independence, I remind him that Bernard Shaw said:
Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
Of course, responsibility may exist in a changed situation. It is an exciting situation. According to the polls, the young people of Scotland cast the majority of their votes for the SNP. They are not afraid of responsibility, change, or of facing up to the negotiations that will undoubtedly be necessary.
But if we are told that an independent Scotland must take its share of the national debt—Scotland did not have one in 1707—that is reasonable. But we must have a share of the gold in the Bank of England, if any is left. We must also presumably take our share of the rolling stock. The oldest of the railway rolling stock is in Scotland. We must have our share of the matters to which our taxpayers contributed under the heading of the Armed Forces. The young of Scotland do not find anything difficult in those ideas.
At one time the majority of Scottish Members of Parliament favoured an excellent Bill. I understand that the draftsman was that excellent Secretary of State, John Thompson. His Bill would have ensured that the Parliament in Scotland had total financial powers, together with common arrangements for defence and foreign affairs. Those matters were to be subject to the right of veto.
That Bill enjoyed the support of the majority of the Scottish Members of the Labour Party. Many men gave their lives to that party believing the party promises to implement a Bill of that kind, or one similar—my father included. What happened? When my late brother-in-law was the official Labour Party candidate, he had that type of pledge on his election address until 1957.
If the Government wonder why the Scottish National Party is making inroads in the industrial West, they should ask themselves whether this is happening as a result of their fear to face up to the excitement of a dynamic Scotland—which would be a good example and of great assistance to the flagging spirits of England. We often have a bad relationship with England. We trot out grievances. I know that that annoys hon. Members. But many grievances must be aired. We are here to do that.
However, instead of a surly lodger, the United Kingdom may have an excellent neighbour and an extra vote in the United Nations, which would reassure those who are worried about the Russian domination of many African countries and the voting blocs at United Nations. The United Kingdom might benefit from several votes in a bloc from these islands in the interests of Western democracy.
None of those ideas terrifies or frightens the people of Scotland. If they frighten Members of Parliament, this is the reason. For years we have asked whether we could put our views over on television, in the same way as the Liberal Party, the Communist Party and other political parties do. Until this year we were refused the right to use the media. The people of England are taken by surprise to find that, lo and behold, the Scottish National Party is on the verge of winning 39 seats at the next General Election. If the English are taken by surprise, it is not our fault.

Mr. Critchley: The hon. Lady left out the strongest argument for an independent Scotland. If Scotland became independent there would always be a Conservative Government in England.

Mrs. Ewing: I remember that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) said that if Scotland became independent, he would live in England.
We have seriously tried to draft a detailed defence budget. It is not easy, because one cannot get enough information, because of the Official Secrets Act, about our own defence budget. Therefore, any attempt that we make cannot be as accurate as we would wish.
What we can do is consider the number of squadrons that a country like Norway has, work out the land mass of Scotland, and see what the needs are. We have tried to do this and my party has produced a paper on the subject. It is an ideas paper, not party policy. We intended to air this on Saturday at our council meeting when this debate was scheduled for next Monday. Through no fault of ours, the debate has been advanced. So I do not offer this as party policy but at least the paper shows the way in which we are thinking.
The paper is called "A Defence Budget and an Independent Scotland". I will put it in the Library and send copies to the Minister and to the hon. Member for West Lothian. With so few hon. Members wanting to take part in this debate, perhaps it would be a good idea if I read it out, but that would take some time.
The paper highlights Scotland's strategic position. This is known to people from the EEC countries. They take seriously


the possible result of the next election as it affects Scotland. I talk to them, and I know that the Germans, the Dutch, the Luxembourgers, the French, the Italians and the Danes take the matter very seriously.
These people are already talking in terms of Scotland, if it wishes to stay in the EEC, having parity with Denmark. They see nothing ridiculous in that. The very fact that many hon. Members embraced the European concept as fiercely as they did makes a nonsense of thinking that there is anything illogical about an independent Scotland, loyal to the Crown, within the commonwealth of nations.
The fact that oil was found at the bottom of our garden does not particularly concern me. I have been a member of the Scottish National Party since 1946. I stood for Parliament in 1967 and oil was not being discussed then. The coming of oil only leads one to say, "All this and Heaven too." It has arrived in our bit of the North Sea, according to international law.

Mr. William Hamilton: What about Shetland?

Mrs. Ewing: That is a bogy man, particularly since we shall win that seat at the next election. We have said that Shetland will have as much autonomy as she wants. We have so much oil in that part of the North Sea that it does not matter.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Lady says that the Shetlanders can have as much autonomy as they want. Does she accept, then, that they will also be able to have their own air force, army and navy? If the oil belongs to Shetland, they will probably be better able to afford those forces than Scotland will.

Mrs. Ewing: There is that. It would be up to Shetland entirely, but that is the policy of my party. [Laughter.] Hon. Members who sit and laugh do not know what they are laughing at. Are they laughing at small countries? Are they laughing at the Isle of Man or at Guernsey? Hon. Members should be careful not to laugh at what a large proportion of the Scottish electorate want.
The defeat in the Iceland settlement was a perfect example of what happens when a London Government with no imagination try to say "No" to the rights of small nations. I should have thought that that was a sobering reflection for them—that little Iceland, with its vital interests at stake, could achieve protection for its fishing communities which this House will not allow us to achieve.
That brings me to the subject of fishery protection. The House seems to find it amusing to think of a Scottish army, navy and air force. But what defence have we at the moment for our fishing industry? As an MP for a fishing area, I know that if there is one phrase which arouses fisherman to wrath it is "fishery protection". Rude oaths follow if one says those words to fishermen. The phrase "fishery scientist" is the only other one which seems to cause the same reaction.
The fishery protection vessels are not there when they are needed. Armadas are invading our waters from Russia, Poland and Bulgaria. They are taking the lot from the bottom—they are not conservationists—and we are losing a valuable source of protein.

Mr. Hooley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that the House was debating the RAF. I am finding it difficult to follow the relevance of the hon. Lady's argument.

Mrs. Ewing: Yes, I am—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. In an Adjournment debate it is possible and permissible to go fairly wide, so long as one confines oneself to the Services in general.

Mrs. Ewing: I do not find it odd to think that the RAF has a rôle to play in fishery protection. In a recent trip to a fishing base in my constituency, I noticed some of these armadas. While the RAF is doing its job, fishery protection could be combined with it. So my remarks are distinctly relevant; I am not straying from the subject of the debate. Obviously there is a rôle for ships in fishery protection and I do not say that the RAF would usurp that rôle. In fact, we need far more. The present vessels are never there when they are wanted. The RAF has a rôle to play.
Students of politics will take note of the fairness of the hon. Member for West Lothian in saying that there is a distinct possibility of my party winning a mandate for independence at the next election. I was gratified by his agreement that such a mandate would be 36 seats. Negotiations would then happen and they would happen quickly. There would be a queue of applicants. As someone who represents over 4,000 members of the RAF, I know how many have said that they would opt to stay in Scotland because, having come from England, they have learned to love it.
I must refute one other statement by the hon. Member for West Lothian, who I am glad to see has returned. He accused us of being anti-English. I would counsel him to take care. The people of Scotland will not like to hear that he has said that. It is not true.

Mr. Norman Buchan: But it is true.

Mrs. Ewing: To be pro-Scotland is not to be anti-England. To believe in the aspirations of one's own people to run their own affairs is not to be anti-anything: it is to be pro-something.
I am also proud of Scotland's racial record. I have no racial attitudes at all towards any person. Scotland has a proud history. We have absorbed thousands of Irish people. We are the only Western country which did not persecute the Jews. We took in members of the Polish army, waves of Italians and Flemings and waves of English people. The English people who chose to come and settle down in lovely places like Morayshire are voting for the Scottish National Party.

The Under Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): Would the hon. Lady—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I have finished.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understood the hon. Lady to say that she had sat down.

7 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: This debate is supposed to be about the Royal Air Force, but since you have ruled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is

a fairly wide-ranging debate, perhaps I may recall to the House an incident that occurred in Scotland a week last Monday when two people were arrested outside the French consulate in Edinburgh in possession of explosives or arms, one of whom, I gather, was a very prominent official in the SNP.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: I know exactly what the hon. Lady is going to say, that the matter is sub judice.

Mrs. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe the hon. Member is once again out of order, for if there is such a matter, obviously it is sub judice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has no knowledge of any such case.

Mr. Hamilton: I am very glad of that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. George Reid: I find that difficult to understand, because undoubtedly those involved have been twice remanded in court in Edinburgh, and I hope the House will accept my word for that. It would be unfortunate if the House were to get into a delicate point in the case at this time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, if there is in fact some charge laid against certain persons, obviously it would be well if the matter were not pursued.

Mr. Hamilton: I am just pointing out that one was an official in the party of the hon. Gentleman who rose on that second point of order. I leave it at that. But it is no good the Scottish nationalists saying at one and the same time that they seek to live peaceably with English and other people when they are inciting that kind of activity. I leave it at that and we shall let the courts judge this matter in due course.
I would ask the hon. Lady—though I am not inviting her to interrupt, because I shall refuse to give way if she gets up—a question about the problem of Service men and housing. I pose the proposition that most of the RAF people in her constituency, I guess, are English people. Will they be allowed to go on


the lists of Scottish local housing authorities? It would be very interesting if we could get an acceptance of the principle that Englishmen, Irishmen and Welshmen now serving in the RAF in Moray and Nairn will be allowed to go on the housing list in Moray and Nairn if they choose to live there.
I presume the hon. Lady would accept that in relation to the other welfare problems, and on the relationship between the pay and lodging allowances of Service men—whether it be in the RAF or any other branch of the Services—this was the principle agreed several years ago. The same grievance arises with nurses. It is not unique to the Armed Forces and if they have a grievance, it is one which has been accepted for several years. I do not know whether official representations have been made to the Department about this but certainly other individual Members may have done so. I have done so myself. The problem is not unique to the Forces.
Perhaps I may make a passing reference to what was said by my hon Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who had an outside engagement which he had to attend. He has now returned. Nobody could accuse him of absenting himself from a debate in which he takes part. I would say to him and other hon. Members that the policy of the SNP ought to be spelled out and publicised. Perhaps the Government might help by providing White Paper facilities for that party. Alternatively, the Government themselves might produce a White Paper on the implications of separate Scottish forces. I believe that the Scottish taxpayer should know exactly what is involved.
I give the House just one or two examples. A few weeks ago there was a leak in The Scotsman about the official defence policy of the SNP. For instance, Rosyth Dockyard, which happens to be in my constituency and employs about 6,000 people, will have its strength reduced, according to the document, from 6,000 to 1,500. The dockyard is the biggest employer in the whole of that part of Fife and its labour force is to be reduced by 75 per cent. under the SNP policy. Moreover, the main function of the yard is the servicing of the nuclear submarines which are part of the NATO nuclear defence.
The SNP says two things which are mutually contradictory—that Scotland will remain members of NATO but that it deplores—and the noble Lady has called it morally indefensible—relying on nuclear weapons. So the nuclear element will be removed from Rosyth.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Member's party said that.

Mr. Hamilton: No. The hon. Gentleman must read more carefully what we said—if he can read at all. We never said we would unilaterally withdraw facilities. We said we would seek agreement with the Warsaw Pact to reduce our NATO commitment.
But it is no responsible moral posture to say one is against the nuclear deterrent and at the same time seek to hide under the nuclear umbrella of NATO. It is no strong moral posture to say "We are against nuclear weapons if they are under our control but as long as they are under NATO financing and provided by the United States of America, we shall accept their protection". This seems to me a highly immoral posture.

Mr. Donald Stewart: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: I shall certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Stewart: I was not for one moment implying that the Government were to remove the nuclear bases on moral grounds, but was suggesting that they would get to them before we did on a future cut in expenditure which may not be so far off.

Mr. Hamilton: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. The actual expenditure on the nuclear element of our defence forces is very marginal, only a very tiny fraction of the total defence expenditure. If the hon. Gentleman were to take a casual glance at the figures, they would tell him that.
When the hon. Lady talks of the massive Scottish contribution to the United Kingdom defence forces, she is right, of course. The Black Watch made a great contribution in the last war. My own brother was a member of the Black Watch. He happened to be an Englishman; and I suspect many of the Black Watch and all the regiments in Scotland are predominantly English and Welsh


people. So it is a nonsense to talk in purely nationalistic terms about who makes what contribution in what war at what particular time.
Ian Smith uses the same argument of Rhodesia. The white people in Rhodesia say "We made a great contribution to the Western defence forces in the last war". The great Rhodesian contribution was mostly a black Rhodesian contribution rather than a white one. But one does not want to get into that kind of racial argument into which the hon. Lady was leading us, into which her party is leading us and on which her hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) decidedly led the SNP conference last week. It is quite clear they wanted a completely independent, separate and different relationship from that which now exists within the United Kingdom.
The figures that were leaked to The Scotsman indicated that under the SNP plans—and I do not know how the nationalists came to arrive at these figures —they were to have an army, which would cost £140 million—not £150 million or £130 million. I do not know where that figure came from. There was to be a tank force in Germany out of this and there was to be a navy with a budget of £77 million precisely—not £76 million or £78 million. There was to be an air force at cost of £130 million which would guard the Scottish-controlled North Sea installations.
I want to ask my hon. Friend: what kind of air force would one get for £130 million? It is not going to be enough to provide fisheries protection and protection for North Sea oil. Presumably, there will be a Scottish—a tartan—contingent in Europe as well to be found out of the £130 million. Supposing Shetland decided that it wanted independence and would take control of the oil and have its own air force, do Ministers think it feasible that the Shetland air force could protect the oil against the air force operating from Edinburgh? This is a serious proposition. These are possible alternatives which might develop if the SNP gets its way.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Shetlanders have made absolutely clear that they do not want to go

independent, but want to retain their relationship with London and Westminster and have nothing to do with Edinburgh?

Mr. Hamilton: We have said enough to demonstrate the nonsense of these arguments and remote possibilities.
After their mauling yesterday, the Opposition seem to have gone into purdah today. They chose the subject of this debate and there have never been more than half-a-dozen of them here at any time, though I concede that the quality has made up for the quantity. Seldom can the predominantly Tory Press have been so harshly critical of a Tory performance as they were today about yesterday's pathetic pantomime from the Leader of the Opposition.
The right hon. Lady popped into this debate for two or three minutes, probably to see whether it was still going on. She has the impossible task of trying to satisfy the Tory skinheads in the shires and suburbs by making terrifying noises about the Marxist State which is alleged to be just around the corner. When I look at my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his predecessor, I do not think there is much danger of a Marxist State being established while they are around.

Mr. Goodhew: This is a defence debate, though one would not think so from the Scottish side-show now taking place. The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend was well received by the Armed Forces when she spoke about the Russian threat. I hope the hon. Gentleman will talk about that and what is required to match it.

Mr. Hamilton: I am about to come to that. The hon. Gentleman has anticipated me by a few seconds.
In addition to trying to placate the people in the shires and suburbs, the Leader of the Opposition must also convince uncommitted voters that she and her party have credible alternative military and civil policies to those being pursued by the Government—not least in defence. It was noticeable that in the right hon. Lady's pathetic speech yesterday, which had such a drumming in almost every newspaper this morning, she did not say a word about defence


expenditure. She said we had to cut extensively and immediately everywhere except in defence. She was the darling of the defence forces wherever she went. It is easy to become the darling of the defence forces if one promises them everything they want.
Many years ago I visited our forces in Singapore at a time when my party was on the point of saying that we were to withdraw from that area. My colleagues and I were nearly thrown overboard by the naval establishment in Singapore because we were saying "You are getting out, my boys. We have no rôle here. We cannot afford it." They thought we were public enemies number one.
The Leader of the Opposition has not made noises like that. What made her the darling of the forces? Did she promise them increased expenditure? If so, how much and in what directions? We have not yet heard a single word from the Opposition about how much more cash they would spend on the RAF or how much less would be spent on housing, health and education—which is what this exercise is all about.
The article by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) in the NATO Review has already been quoted. It seems to have been popular reading. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is a genuine supporter of his leader or only a nominal supporter, but talking about her in this article, he said:
Having said publicly that the first duty of Government is national security, and that she would 'strengthen' Britain's defences, she had to carry the Shadow Cabinet with her at a time when the growth of public expenditure is threatening not only to drive the country to insolvency but to stifle our liberties as well.
This needs to be spelt out in detail. It is no good generalising on these matters.

Mr. Critchley: I should like to think that the hon. Gentleman has read the whole of my article, but I suspect he has read only the opening paragraphs, which have already been quoted. Were he to read the whole article, he would see laid out various ideas and suggestions which I believe a Conservative Government should follow.

Mr. Hamilton: It is boring enough to have read the article once. I do not want

to bore the House by reading it again. I have read the whole article. It lays out in fairly general terms the relationship between defence policy and foreign policy and says what a complete washout Tory leaders have been on these subjects over the years.
I would read out the article, but it would be very damaging to the hon. Gentleman's promotion prospects and I want to protect him as much as I can. However, I can think of little worse than being promoted to the Front Bench opposite, so the hon. Gentleman had better be careful. Just let him keep writing these articles. That will keep him safe from promotion to the Front Bench.
There are some general propositions which will meet with the approval of the House. One of the reasons for the lack of interest in this debate is that very few of us have the knowledge and authority to make contributions of any great value which are likely to influence the decision makers. In fact, Ministers are spokesmen for others. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for State read a brief, and probably he did not understand it. It was probably written for him by someone else. Those people are elsewhere, and we are in no position to challenge them on, for example, technical or financial grounds. As Back-Bench Members we can do little more than philosophise and generalise.
In recent years I have noticed that the Ministry of Defence has sought to influence us by a mixture of glossy propaganda pamphlets—they come through the post and are delightful material—and terrifying allegations about the Soviet Union's capacity. That capacity was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George).

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to say that on this occasion he is chasing the wrong bird to shoot at. To my knowledge my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), the Under-Secretary of State, has been a hard-working member of the defence group for 10 years. It is good that someone who has worked in a special group should be promoted.

Mr. Hamilton: The Under-Secretary of State is a great friend of mine, but he was promoted primarily because he was campaign manager for the Prime


Minister, not for his record in the defence group. Any one who believes what my hon. Friend has just said would believe anything.

Mr. Dalyell: Sorry, Jim.

Mr. Hamilton: I think my hon. Friend knows that. It was evident from his speech that that was so.
I revert to what I was saying, and I refer to the document which I received from the Ministry dated 11th May 1976, the NATO Bulletin for commanders and public information officers. I am neither a commander nor a public information officer, but it came to me. It provides a summary of Soviet military production of all kinds and makes terrifying reading.
A totalitarian Government can always get away with far more military expenditure than a democratic State. In this country one of the most unpopular things to advocate is expenditure on any form of defence, but in the Soviet Union, or in any other totalitarian State, the State can impose its will.
Such States do not have this sort of debate. They would not tolerate the activities of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) and his pacificism, which we all respect. My hon. Friend would be put in a salt mine or in some other such place in the Soviet Union. However, we tolerate that sort of debate, and that attitude imposes limits on what a democratic government can do and what they can get away with.
I was talking on those lines to some responsible NATO officials in Brussels a few weeks ago. They said precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South said this afternoon—namely that the West knows very well that the Soviet Union is building up its forces.
When the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition made her statements about the Soviet Union a few months ago she was saying nothing novel. We all know what is going on. Our dilemma is not to contract out but to try to the best of our ability to meet the threat that is clearly posed by the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. We cannot contract out.
It is all an argument of how much the United Kingdom can afford and in which directions it can afford it. I be-

lieve it would be immoral for us to make no contribution to the NATO effort. I think we are all agreed on that. The argument between the two sides in the House is the size of the contribution and how it is directed towards our naval forces, air forces and ground forces.
I am in no position to judge whether the Government's decisions on these matters are right or wrong. All I say is that the British people are confused and angry when they see their local hospital, school or road being allowed to go into decay and decline when £4,000 million or £5,000 million a year is going into defence expenditure. It is extremely difficult to persuade them that that is the right priority, but that is not to say that we as politicians should not attempt the exercise and should not try to convince them that we must pay our insurance policy.
That is what it is. It may mean doing without some other things. The family that takes out a family insurance policy very often does without immediate benefits for the sake of future contingencies. That is what we are talking about in this debate.
I speak as no expert. I started my Service career in the RAF and ended up in the Army, and was no good to either Service.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend is too modest.

Mr. Hamilton: No, that is a realistic assessment of my military career. I believe it behoves any Government, whether it be Labour, Conservative, or whatever, to look to our defences within the context of collective defence within NATO and to try to educate our people into the need for keeping our guard, always accepting that totalitarian regimes can outbid us and outspend us. What we cannot made up for in expenditure we must make up for in quality. We have to do the best we can in the context in which we are living, and hope to God that the peace will be safeguarded if only by a mutual fear of the nuclear deterrent.

7.28 p.m.

Miss Janet Fookes: I do not wish to pursue the line whether it would be a good or bad thing to have a totally Scottish RAF and other totally


Scottish Armed Services. As I understand it, if there is a weakness in NATO it is the attempt to make various sovereign States work together. I cannot see that the Alliance would be strengthened by having yet another independent State included, especially one which has set aside as immoral and not to be touched any aspect of nuclear deterrence. Apart from the Scottish nationalists, the only people who would have any joy out of that would be our potential enemy—namely, the Soviet Union.
I turn to the RAF, which is supposedly the subject of our debate. I thank the Minister for arranging visits to two RAF stations in which several colleagues and myself took part. We visited RAF Marham and RAF Coningsby. There is tremendous value in arranging such visits, as they give the opportunity of first-hand information from the professionals and a chance to see some of the planes and equipment about which we are talking.
It always saddens me on such occasions to note that the Conservatives always vastly outnumber Government supporters. Rarely does one see Left wingers, for example, the very people one would like to see take part in these visits and see things for themselves. They are the people who stay away. It is rather like headmasters and schoolteachers who say that the very parents they most want to see are those who never turn up at parent-teacher association meetings, open days or any other invitations. We must ask why certain Members are so coy about seeing these things face to face.
I think it was the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) who is no longer in the Chamber, who inquired whether we could not make more use of simulators. If the hon. Gentleman had been on any of these visits he would know that they are very much in use. For example, RAF Marham has two simulators for the Victors and Coningsby has a simulator for the Phantom. So I could go on. We have made great strides in this direction. It is something of which we should be proud, but he, apparently, knows nothing whatever about it.
Let me turn to the question of cuts and future cuts. We had assurances in the past when we had our big defence review—the review to end all reviews—that this was it and that we were now

geared to our requirements. Scarcely was the ink dry on the paper before we were getting further cuts, and cuts beyond that. Therefore, Opposition Members are entitled to express their fears about future cuts. I wish that I could believe the headline in Labour Weekly—which I could just manage to see by peering over someone's shoulder—
Why further cuts cannot be made".
Let us hope that for once the Secretary of State is right, that they cannot be made, but past experience is not a happy omen. The professionals at RAF stations and elsewhere are extremely worried and say categorically that they have trimmed off every bit of fat and that there is no further fat left to trim. I trust that there will no longer be a temptation to make further cuts, whether in the support services or elsewhere.
Perhaps I may say one word about the support services. They are extremely important, especially in keeping aircraft in a condition to fly. On my recent visit it was pointed out that to keep one Phantom or any advanced aircraft flying for one hour represented 45 hours of work and maintenance on the ground. That is alarming. If there is a temptation to cut further, the likelihood is that our aircraft will not be operational in the way that they should be. It is no good our counting up the number of planes we have for different purposes and saying that is sufficient if, in fact, they are on the ground and cannot be got airborne or cannot be got airborne without risk.
I make no pretensions to any expertise in this matter, and on that I agree with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), although I may differ from him on many other matters. It is difficult when one does not have any expertise, and there can be very few hon. Members who have it. We have to accept the observations which are made to us by the professionals and experts. When they say that these aircraft, being so highly powered, are more difficult to keep flying safely than are civil aircraft, which are not under the same strain as military aircraft at the peak of their performance, we have to accept it.
May I turn to what may appear to be rather more mundane matters but which I believe are of importance? For


obvious reasons I shall touch only lightly on this, but there is cause to look again at the security of RAF stations, not from enemies without but from enemies here in England who might seek to penetrate them. We have on our RAF bases tremendously expensive equipment and planes, and I hope that the Minister will look very carefully at the arrangements that are made to guard them from sabotage by the IRA or any other group that may have an axe to grind in bringing them to a standstill. It is not such an obvious threat, perhaps, as the one which we constantly think about, that of the Soviet Union and its satellites.
RAF stations are concerned about the possibilities of conventional attack as well as nuclear threat. It is interesting to notice that they are embarking on a campaign of camouflaging the stations by using khaki-coloured paint on buildings which house the various vehicles in use. They are experimenting with colouring the hard-standing, the runways, to make sure that from the conventional point of view they are not obvious. I gather that even now they tend to cut the grass in several lengths and in several different ways so that there are not vast expanses of plain grass which give the game away in conventional terms. I believe that some stations even have animals grazing, although there might be considerable disadvantage in that. That is done to try to give the appearance of farmland rather than an air station.
I suggest to the Minister that it might be prudent and useful, both for the purposes of camouflage and in the interests of agriculture, to consider using the grass areas, which can be fairly large, for agricultural purposes. I was not the one who thought of camouflaging RAF stations. It is already being done. I merely suggest this as an addition to what is already being done, not on my initiative.
I turn to a different matter entirely—the question of morale, which has already been dealt with by hon. Members on both sides of the House. As housing has been dealt with at some length I shall not repeat the arguments. I simply wish to support the points that have been made. When people are of necessity on the move and where constant uprooting is necessary, it is important to see that there are

satisfactory arrangements for buying houses and for resettling Service personnel when they leave the Services. It is not strictly germane to the RAF, but I see many of the problems which occur when naval personnel leave the Service because of my constituency interests. I hope that the Minister will take seriously the detailed points made by my hon. Friend in this connection.
There is another aspect of morale which has not been touched on, and that is the "professional" side. I get the impression from talking to officers and men on my visits that they are almost on the defensive, not against outside enemies but against public opinion and the politicians' opinion of them. They strongly believe that they are doing an important job, that they are guarding the freedoms of the country, but that, outside that and outside the immediate locality where they have made contacts, their rôle is not understood and they are not appreciated.
That is hardly surprising when one hears the strictures, especially from the left-wing element of the Labour Party, about the wickedness of spending on defence so much money which could be spent on more worthwhile projects. I shall not rehearse the arguments. We know them only too well.
It is forgotten by people when they talk about defence that they are to a large extent talking about men and women in the Armed Services and their families, who take it to heart when ill-informed comments, almost malicious at times, are made. These people believe in what they are doing and they need far more support than they receive from the public in general and from politicians in particular. I am sure that they are ready to accept that in times of economic stringency they cannot have everything they want. They are realistic enough to recognise that. A little appreciation of what they are doing would do a great deal to boost their morale, and I hope that when the reports of debates such as this get back to them they will be heartened by those of us who greatly admire the work they are doing and wish them all God speed with it.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: I thought that at one stage this debate


had become a theological dispute between the dour and humourless John Knox from West Lothian and a monstrous regiment of women from Moray and Nairn. Perhaps now I could get back to the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1976 and refer quite briefly to a specific section of that statement—page 46, paragraphs 62 and 63 on military aid to the civilian community given by the RAF in various parts of the world.
I am glad to see that RAF aircraft were used to carry out aerial surveys in countries as far apart as Kenya and Brunei. I was also glad to see that they assisted with the evacuation of 5,000 refugees from Angola to Portugal last year, and that helicopter flights were used in Hong Kong for mercy purposes. This is an admirable record. I want to develop this theme because I think we could become a little more sophisticated in the use of the military services, and particularly the RAF, in giving aid in cases of natural disaster.
The radio and television have brought home to all of us in vivid fashion the misery caused to human beings as a result of great floods, earthquakes, typhoons, and sometimes the failure of rain, which produces a desperate famine, as happened a year or two ago in the Sahel district of West Africa.
I was very interested in the fact that the Church of England conference convened in November 1972 looked specifically at the possibility of creating a disaster relief force on the basis of the transport aircraft and trucks available in such proliferation in the Western Alliance and in NATO.
One could ask immediately why should there not be an international responsibility in the same way as there are international bodies for other matters? As the House knows, a United Nations disaster relief office exists in Geneva, and stores are available in Denmark under United Nations control to help with these problems. But the UNDRO in Geneva is simply a small administrative group and not an operational group designed to draw together the efforts of countries to help out in these natural disasters. It does not possess the aircraft, boats or lorries which are needed on the ground. Therefore, what is needed is a fairly sophisticated organisation to carry out

transport, not merely in the sense of transporting food, medical supplies, and tents and so forth, into the country in which the disaster has occurred, but also to get it from the port or airport up country in the most difficult and complex conditions.
Perhaps I may quote one or two examples of the difficulties which have arisen. In 1973 floods of the Indus river in Pakistan disrupted communications and the Pakistan director of relief operations said that the first priority was for helicopters and flat-bottomed boats. This was despite the fact that Pakistan Armed Forces are far more sophisticated and much better equipped for transport than those of many other countries.
Then there was the terrible drought in West Africa in 1973, and there again, food and medical supplies piled up. They were airlifted to Dakar and other places but the shortage of transport was too great to get them up country in lorries or by air to the places where people at that time were actually starving. One of the European Commissioners at the time, M. Lardinois, asked why the countries of NATO could not produce an airlift of 40 aircraft. He is still waiting for an answer. No attempt was made at joint reconnaissance or stockpiling, and as a result thousands of people died for lack of the food or relief which might have been taken to them in other circumstances.
In Ethiopia in 1974 there was a disastrous drought. I quote from a report in the Guardian on 20th March 1974 which said:
There are not enough lorries and four-wheel drive trucks available to transport from the ports into the interior the minimum amount of grain to keep people alive. The Government of Ethiopia have estimated, and the leading agencies agree, that at least 100 lorries are required urgently from abroad. So far 20 have arrived. It is as certain as catastrophe can be that if more trucks do not arrive now, many of those now wholly dependent on relief will die of starvation this summer.
Then last year we had the disaster in Guatemala, where again helicopter facilities for transporting relief and goods would have been of the very greatest assistance.
I am suggesting that within the RAF, in concert with our allies in NATO, we might possibly earmark and specially train a transport force using aircraft which could not only transport relief


goods but could carry lorries and flat-bottomed boats which would then be available on the site to transport relief supplies up country where they were directly needed. Not only do the Armed Forces actually possess the aircraft, lorries and jeeps which are needed, they have the highly qualified skilled men—the drivers, sappers, and signalmen who would be able to man the aircraft, and also man the receiving end of the line and handle the trucks and boats.
The possibility exists, both in our forces and in NATO, to create a disaster relief force which would be equal to meeting the sort of disasters which we have seen occurring in different parts of the world in the past five or six years.
Some people might say that to have such a force built up in NATO could add a particular tone, flavour, or cachet which was not acceptable to the people of the country in which the disaster occurred. I think that is a very doubtful sort of argument. In a minor disaster there might be some quibbles by the Foreign Office, but in the case of a major disaster it is inconceivable that people who were dying or who were threatened with starvation, famine, death, flood, or earthquake, would, in fact turn down relief which amounted to the difference between life and death on the grounds that it came from NATO rather than from somewhere else.
I hope that my hon. Friend will use his influence in the Ministry of Defence and with his colleagues within NATO where there is a great deal of sympathy for this idea. The establishment of such a force would give the alliance itself an extra prestige and standing in the world. It would do so if it were known that such a force were available, and that aircraft, lorries and boats were there, not only for the defence of the Western countries against attack, but in a civilised humane rôle which could be exercised in the various continents throughout the world for the relief of suffering and to help men and women in times of disaster in countries which had nothing at all to do with Western Europe.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Julian Critchley: It is a sad measure of our national decline

that we should spend five or even 10 minutes this afternoon discussing the possibility of an independent defence policy for Scotland. When it was described by one lady Scot as being Scotland's adherence to NATO on the one hand and its abhorrence for any alliance which relied upon nuclear weapons on the other, one can only come to the conclusion that such sloppy thinking is the consequence of a political party which is run by failed schoolmasters.
I should like to join everyone else in congratulating the Under-Secretary on his elevation to his new post. He is a robust member of the Manifesto Group and it is good to see him in his new position. If one can offer him any comfort it is that he will have to sit through only one such debate as this in a year. He showed us all a copy of a newspaper which most of us had never seen called Labour Weekly and he stressed on more than one occasion that the motive behind the Government's cuts in defence was to secure economy. That is our motive for cutting defence, but the motive of the Labour Party is a blend of economy and appeasement—not to the Soviet Union but to its own left wing.
The Manifesto Group has failed on the intellectual plane because it has not been prepared to take the war into the camp of the left wing of the Labour Party in order to determine and demonstrate exactly what it is that the left wing wants. We need a another John Strachey, who in 1962–63 wrote a superb pamphlet which destroyed the unilateralists' case. The Minister of State for Defence has brains, I hear it rumoured that he has more brains than anyone else in the Government. Perhaps he could put his pen to paper and carry out that task.
Some of the Labour left wingers, but not very many, are pacifists. Most of them are neutralists, who want a neutral Britain in the context of the cold war. We must now ask whether a neutral Britain would make war more or less likely. Would the fact of Britain leaving the NATO Alliance and thereby upsetting the balance of power upon which our peace has depended of itself make war more or less likely?
There is a second question which no one ever puts to the unilateralists and neutralists. What sort of neutral Britain


are they seeking? Is it a neutral Britain which is armed, such as Sweden is armed, or disarmed? If they are seeking an armed neutral Britain outside NATO, perhaps on the Swedish model, they must appreciate that it would cost us more money than our present defence arrangements.
The advantage of NATO is that we share defence costs with others. If the Left Wing wants a neutral Britain which is also disarmed, that is a prospect that I find utterly appalling. But we do not know what it wants. This is another example of those who believe in collective security, on both sides of the House, letting their opponents get away with sloppy thinking by not asking them to spell out the foreign policy objectives implicit in their hostility towards defence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) spoke about the choice being between red or dead. I admire my hon. Friend because he at least in our party is capable of debate, but he is wrong in suggesting that that is the choice. If I were offered the choice, I should prefer to be red than dead, and so would any rational human being.

Mr. Tebbit: No!

Mr. Critchley: The whole point of my argument is that those who favour collective security and defence strive to avoid ever being in the position of choosing between being red or dead. That is what collective security and NATO is all about—avoiding being placed in the position of choosing between suicide or surrender.

Mr. Tebbit: Unless those who are in the Services—and the rest of us who stand behind—are willing to say that we prefer to be dead than red, it is inevitable that we shall be red, because our opponents are perfectly willing to be dead rather than let us stay free.

Mr. Critchley: I take my hon. Friend's point about the people who join the Services. They have made a choice already, at least in the sense that they are prepared to lay down their lives for their country. On the other hand, if one of us were a Prime Minister or member of a Cabinet of whatever party and we were faced with the political situation in which this country was threatened to use nuclear

weapons against a conventional Soviet attack in order to repel it, I suspect that the more rational among us would choose surrender in preference to suicide. Otherwise we would be destroying the lives of millions of people, and not just our own.
I have a simple and optimistic faith in human nature which is that, however hideous the ideology to which one might have to bow, in the long term the human spirit would triumph. But this is a nightmare situation. The whole point of politics is to avoid the position where the only choice lies between suicide and surrender.
I want to ask the Minister a number of questions in the vain hope of getting answers. I asked a number of questions on the debate on the Royal Navy, but I did not get a single answer. I felt that it would be unkind to write a letter to ask for the answers, but I shall try again this evening to get some.
Soviet air power in the Warsaw Pact area is improving in numbers and quality. One significant measurement is that its radius of action has increased in recent years from 300 nautical miles to 600. Another advantage of the Warsaw Pact air forces is that they have access to a far larger number of airfields than the NATO forces.
I welcomed the setting up in June 1974 of the Allied Air Forces Command Europe at Ramstein in Germany which is the new headquarters and which coordinates the Second Tactical Air Force in the north and the Fourth Tactical Air Force in the south. This new headquarters is long overdue. Will the Minister tell us how the new system is working out?
I understand from discussions with air force personnel in Central Europe that there are three interpretations of the command arrangements which started in June 1974. There are those who believe that the highly centralised control of operations at the AAFCE relies on sophisticated communications direct to individual squadrons, and that the headquarters of the allied tactical air forces have a subsidiary rôle. A rival philosophy is that operational control should be concentrated at the headquarters of the two air forces, the Second and the


Fourth—leaving the Supreme Headquarters to act solely in a co-ordinating rôle.
Believe it or not, a third doctrine is that there should be an enhanced wartime rôle for the national operational commands, that is the national squadrons, which come under the headquarters of the Second Air Force or the Fourth Air Force. Those people who hold that view believe that the NATO headquarters are far too remote for the effective use of air power. Has the NATO Military Committee had this under review and what has been its findings? How successful, or otherwise, has been the new command which was set up in June 1974?
The numbers game is always appearing in defence debates. Allied air forces in Europe, including the 460 aircraft of France, all those stationed in the United Kingdom, and all available United States reinforcements, are superior to those of the Warsaw Pact in numbers and quality. However, there are several serious snags. These include, first, the small number of allied airfields, which are available. Of the 30 allied airfields, most of them are in the north, in the region of the Second Tactical Air Force.
The second snag is that, following 1967 and the withdrawal of France from the military organisation, we lost 21 French airfields. What arrangements are there for the reactivation of those fields and what about the overflying rights of NATO aircraft over French air space? This would be extremely important if there were to be any crisis in Europe and any particular theatre needed to be reinforced.
The US air force reinforcements are due to join the Fourth Tactical Air Force based in the southern part of Germany. Indeed, 80 per cent. of all allied air strength in Central Europe will, in theory at least, belong to the Fourth Tactical Air Force.
The point is that although most of the reinforcements will come from America, and will head for the Fourth Tactical Air force, the great majority of airfields are in the north, in the area of the Second Tactical Air Force, and the French air fields might well be denied American reinforcements. What happens then?

Mr. John Roper: Is it not possible that some of the American rein-

forcement squadrons would be based in East Anglia rather than in the area of the Fourth Tactical Air Force?

Mr. Critchley: That is obviously so, because in present circumstances, and assuming that certain of our forward airfields might have been destroyed had hostilities begun, clearly the major problem would be to send the reinforcements to any base which could accept them. But if this is just a matter of reinforcements before the outbreak of hostilities, they might go to the United Kingdom, Belgium, or elsewhere but there is a grave shortage of air fields in NATO Europe.
A further snag is the whole problem of interoperability of aircraft between the two tactical air forces and even between air fields occupied by units of the different nationalities within the same tactical air force. Yet another snag is that there are strong differences in tactical doctrine. For example, the American air force, that is, the Fourth Tactical Air Force, favours the high level approach following suppression by ECM, while the European components of the force favour a low level attack. The US alone has the 407L radar control. There is also a lack of standardisation among those allied aircraft already in service. There are 24 different sorts of aircraft—if one includes modifications, 39 —flying, all with four different rlesô
This restricts the ability of aircraft to operate in and out of airfields other than those assigned to squadrons of the same nationality or to accommodate aircraft of the same type. We have non-standardised ammunition, non-standardised bomb racks. Oxygen, some fuels, and other items are not available when aircraft visit a strange airfield. What in war time is needed is a re-arming capability, and this does not exist at the moment.
The tactical air forces should be able to concentrate wherever a major attack threatens or occurs. The air forces of the Warsaw Pact are able to do that through standardised equipment, but allied air forces are incapable of so doing. It is logistically impossible.
While aviation fuel has been standardised within NATO, nozzles and rapid fuelling equipment have not; nor have aircraft munitions. Allied air forces are tethered to their own national air fields. They are unable to be re-armed


or repaired at other airfields, unable to concentrate where or when required, and unable to go on with the battle should their own airfields be knocked out. One estimate given by a person in authority is that only one third to one half of the 2,800 allied aircraft at NATO's disposal could be brought to bear in any conflict.
Will the Minister say something to allay some of the anxieties that I have expressed about the deficiency of the allied air forces in Central Europe?

8.7 p.m.

Mr. John Dunlop: On behalf of my colleagues in the United Ulster Unionist Party I would offer our congratulations to the Minister on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box today. I wish him a relatively peaceful and useful tenure in office. We hope that his rather attractive name will characterise the feelings we shall have for him in this House as time goes on.
One cannot help but doubt the oft-repeated denials of the Government and their Ministers in Northern Ireland that a process of economic withdrawal is being exercised in Northern Ireland when we are confronted with the calamitous news that the RAF Aldergrove and RAF Sydenham are to be closed down permanently. What makes it more serious is the claim that this will effect a saving at the present time of financial stringency. The whole process of servicing and repairs to the complicated American aircraft the Phantom is to be transferred to St. Athan from Aldergrove. Yet at Aldergrove the tools and equipment, the skilled technicians and the work force, the vast hanger space and runaway facilities are all there and have been used successfully over the years. In addition a loyal and highly productive work force has always been available. The economics of the proposal is highly questionable. There will be the cost of training personnel at St. Athan to cope with the Phantom aircraft—and how long will that take? Secondly, who will service and repair the intricate flight control system? It will be a time-wasting and expensive process of sending it to the makers or some other specialist firm. All this procedure has in the past been done under one roof, and in one unit, at Aldergrove.
It is concerned that possibly only one other such unit exists in the United

Kingdom. How can we reconcile the payment of £4,745 to a junior Air Force technician compared with £3,696 payable to a civilian craftsman at Aldergrove—a difference of over £1,000? We cannot see where the saving comes in there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) has told the House of two visits that he made to Aldergrove to inspect the computer system which controls the entire operations there. It controls the planning, the progress of aircraft servicing and the monitoring of unit costs. This complicated process made it one of the most effective in the RAF from the point of view of cost. How long will it take to establish such a system at St. Athan? What will the cost be?
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South received a letter not long ago from Mr. William Bailey, the AEUW convenor at Aldergrove No. 23 Maintenance Unit. I do not want to bore the House with the whole of that letter, but I should like to draw the Minister's attention to one paragraph:
We are still awaiting the meeting with Mr. Roy Mason and we believe that the only thing holding it up is the date of the meeting, and we believe it will take place within the next fortnight.
That letter is dated 26th May 1976. I hope that the Minister will take note of and bring that letter to the attention of his right hon. Friend and make it possible for this man and his anxious companions to meet and put their case before the Secretary of State.
The same dark cloud hangs over RAF Sydenham which is situated in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig). Again, a highly technical, skilled and loyal work force is to be thrown on the scrap heap as well as the second-to-none facilities at Sydenham, creating a state of unemployment which leaves no hope in that area of re-employment for the workers concerned.
People argue that St. Athan is preferred because of its work on the Buccaneer aircraft. RAF Sydenham handled that contract for 13 years, but it was taken from it. Station commander after station commander paid tribute to the efficiency and productivity of the workers there. It is a tragedy and a monstrous injustice that this station, which has such a long


and proud tradition with the RAF, should be closed down and that no hope should be offered to those thereby deprived of their jobs.
Will these savage cuts save money? They will serve only to exacerbate an unemployment situation which is fast approaching 20 per cent. in Northern Ireland.
Ulster Unionists at Westminster once more record not only their disappointment, but their wholehearted and active disagreement, with the policy of Her Majesty's Ministers in this and other areas in the affairs of Northern Ireland.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: I was encouraged by the Minister's attitude at the start of the debate because of the way in which he responded to various points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). However, I am somewhat disadvantaged to see that he is taking a break—a no doubt well-earned break, as he has been on the Front Bench continuously. I hope that his hon. Friend —one of the Whips—will take an occasional note, because I wish to raise with the Government some detailed points. I do not necessarily expect the Minister to respond to all of them tonight, but I hope that this important subject—the Royal Air Force—will be continued in correspondence after the conclusion of the debate.
In my view, the Secretary of State for Defence has done the entire country a great service by producing the revised estimate of Soviet defence spending, not only in actual numbers of roubles, which do not mean a great deal to people in this country, but in forming a reasonably precise estimate of the proportion of GDP at between 11 per cent. and 12 per cent. But the level is not the end of the story. This expenditure has been growing, as the Secretary of State showed in his recent White Paper, by 4 per cent. per annum in real terms. That trend, as much as anything else, concerns many hon. Members on this side of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking quoted from the speech by the Chief of Air Staff, Sir Andrew Humphrey, who said that the rate of Russian build-up at the moment meant that they would

have the capacity to replace the entire Royal Air Force front line every six months. He also said—this is almost as significant as the other quotation—that the Soviet Union is spending more on research and development than the entire Western World put together. That is the critical element. It is even more critical than the sums of money which are being spent or the numbers about which the White Paper has been eloquent. We are outnumbered by 2·3 aircraft to one on the central NATO front.
Bad though that is, there have been certain consolations for NATO forces in the sense that, for example, we have always been able to feel that our training techniques were superior to those of the Warsaw Pact forces. Therefore, numbers are not everything. Our weaponry has also tended to be more sophisticated than that of the Warsaw Pact air forces. I suggest that these two factors are likely to change for the worse.
A recent issue of Flight magazine revealed that it had been given estimates that Soviet training techniques could be lagging by as much as 10 years behind the technological advances being made in operational equipment here. There is no doubt that the Soviets have that problem. It is all very well for them to break into a more sophisticated area, but they must keep their training techniques abreast of that technology. There is no cause for the West to feel in any way complacent. We may feel that we have superior air crew proficiency, but I am sure that within the next decade that advantage will be lost.
I should like to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking in his excellent speech about the need to maintain adequate operational flying hours in training. We understand—again from sources such as Flight magazine—that Russian-trained MiG pilots have said that in pure training terms the Warsaw Pact air forces tend to be more regimented and less flexible than the NATO air forces and that the pilots in their operational squadrons fly fewer hours per month than the NATO target. I understand that the NATO target is 20 to 25 hours per month. The Warsaw Pact air forces tend to average between 10 and 15 hours per month but they tend to spend more of their operational flying


life with the same units and, therefore, with the same type of aircraft. In that context, it could be argued that familiarity breeds additional competence. In either event we shall not have training advantages for more than a few years longer.
In regard to equipment, it could be argued that our advantage is probably almost at an end. Various Soviet aircraft have appeared in recent years, aircraft of a highly sophisticated nature. The Backfire-B swing-wing strategic bomber will be a serious threat in both long range anti-shipping and conventional strike rôles. The SU 19 is a variable sweep strike and interdiction aircraft which is capable of sufficient development potential to take in the entire United Kingdom. The Mig 25 Foxbat is likely to become the Russian standard long-range fighter. and with aerial refuelling it could interdict military air traffic 300 miles off the coast of Ireland.
I hate to strike a discordant note when there have been so many congratulations to the Minister on his appointment, but I had hoped to hear the Minister address himself to the strategic rôle of the Royal Air Force. He did his best in his speech to underline the concept of a Royal Air Force that was ready to respond and to reinforce, but the main problem in today's world is that speed of technological change is so great and the new weapons systems so complex that they take a long time to develop. Therefore, fundamental questions must be asked. It is not enough to say that the Royal Air Force is ready and willing and no doubt will be able to fulfil its task.
First, I wish to ask the Minister whether any attention has been given to the balance between, say, a larger number of less expensive and less sophisticated aircraft as stand-off weapon launching platforms, or whether we should put the emphasis on a smaller number of highly sophisticated aircraft capable of carrying a large weapon potential? This is an important question in terms of NATO.
What is the RAF's view of satellite system technology for target acquisition and guidance of technical missiles? Can tactical power at a distance be achieved with greater accuracy with cost-effective missiles rather than with aircraft? I

should like to know the RAF's official view on those matters.
Furthermore, what is the RAF's view of the whole cruise missile concept? Does the RAF believe that future technology will allow the advent of a cruise missile with a zero CEP that could destroy targets without resorting to nuclear warheads? Does the Royal Air Force have a policy about the relationship between manned aircraft and precision air-launched guided missiles in the 1980s? I am sure that it has, but that has not emerged in this debate.
Let me ask about some specific items of equipment on which I hope the Minister will concentrate his mind as matters about which the House would like to know more. For example, is the SRAAM missile now at the feasibility stage? Could the House be told when the development of that most important programme is likely to eventuate?
What is to happen to the Bloodhound replacement? Have we any news on that score, particularly as we appear to be sliding into some kind of de facto situation where the Government believe that it is already too late to make a change. Surely we should have had a decision before now.
Have the Government any plans about the new air-to-surface anti-shipping missile? I have noticed that in regard to the MRCA the Germans plan to use the Cormorant missile. What do we intend to do about our missile?
In regard to aircraft, I have two points to put to the Minister. It is obvious that the Jaguar requires enhancement to all-weather status. When is this likely to happen? I believe that it needs to be carried out. When is the Jaguar to have its up-rated engines? Again, there is the problem of a certain lack of power. If it is delayed for an indefinite period, this will only increase the cost. The Minister may care to give the House some news about the 403 Jaguar Harrier replacement. Possibly some of my hon. Friends will deal with that mater in their contributions.
Electronic counter measures are hardly ever talked about in these debates, for the good reason that they are totally secret. I am concerned because I understand that our techniques in that area appear to be far behind those of our


NATO Allies. I should like at some stage to be reassured by the Government that we are not neglecting this extremely important area because there is no point in developing the missile unless a first-class ECM is developed with it.
Simulators have been mentioned in this debate. This is an extremely important area for British exports and we have a corner on the market and some excellent firms working on this project in this country. I should like to feel that in future the Government will make any future sales of British equipment conditional on the British simulator going with them. One could drive a bargain of that kind. There have been cases of foreign-produced simulators being developed for inclusion in British produced weapon systems.
It almost appears that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) and I have achieved a tacit agreement not to talk about the advance warning and control system. All I shall say about that matter is that I hope that by this time next year it will have been consigned to history—and a good thing too, in my view.
I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force has now returned to his place, after a well-earned breather. I have put some sizable points to the Government and if the Minister is unable to reply tonight I hope that he will write to me with the information for which I have asked. There is concern on these matters on both sides of the House. We should like to be given a good idea of the policy of the Royal Air Force for the 1980s.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. John Roper: A great deal of what the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) said in his remarks is common ground across the Chamber in a debate such as this. The questions which he put to the Government are questions to which we should all like answers.
I shall return to the subject of AWACS, which is a matter on which I take a different view from the hon. Gentleman. I strongly support the efforts of the Secretary of State for Defence to try in Brussels to achieve a common view in the alliance on this important matter.
I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman ask the Government about the RAF's view on the cruise missiles and the new technologies that might make manned aircraft outdated. There is a difficulty in asking whether the RAF has a view. I suspect that all the Services tend to take a biased attitude in these matters.
It is just like asking the Royal Navy whether we should have anti-submarine through-deck cruisers. Clearly, personnel in the Navy are used to large ships and automatically in favour of them. There may be good arguments for through-deck cruisers as there may also be for manned aircraft, but we must remember that Service personnel who have been used to manned aircraft have a somewhat biased view.
I am anxious, therefore, to know from my hon. Friend that within the central staffs of the Ministry of Defence a view is taken which is able, where necessary, to override these traditional Service attitudes, which might otherwise bias a decision in a traditional way and away from what may make the most sense for our defence needs in the 1970s, and more particularly in the 1980s.
To return to the general question of an airborne early warning system, this is probably the most important procurement decision which will be confronting the Government—and, indeed, all of us in the NATO Alliance—in the next 12 months. We in this country are in a particularly difficult position. Unlike our allies in Western Europe within NATO, we have an alternative aircraft in the Nimrod, which is an excellent aircraft. But in spite of this, from all I have heard, I hope that the wish—which it appears my right hon. Friend has been supporting —that we should find together a solution using the AWACS system will be worked out.
It would not be enough merely to have British, American and perhaps German participation. It would be worth while only if all the European members of the alliance, together with the United States, were prepared to contribute together. If that is not possible, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will try to see whether we can persuade our other partners in the alliance within Western Europe to acquire Nimrods to


fulfil this rôle. But I believe the best option would be the common purchase of the AWACS system.

Mr. Pattie: Will not the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a great danger with projects such as the one he is talking about that the arguments tend to be polarised into those in favour of standardisation and those who want to follow a British-produced system, and that we could be pushed into buying AWACS simply because it would be in the guise of an all-NATO purchase? Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the system, never mind where it is produced, really does the job that we need in this country?

Mr. Roper: I agree that there can be argument about the efficacy of the, system, but it seems to me that the capacity of the Boeing AWAC system is greater than that which is possible under the Nimrod. I made it quite clear that if the Boeing system is not acceptable to the alliance as a whole, I hope that other countries in Western Europe will acquire Nimrods so that we may have some degree of standardisation on one aircraft to do this job. But there will be controversy as to which is the preferably system for us and for the alliance as a whole.
I turn now to the remarks of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) and the very interesting comments he made upon the problem of the air forces in the central front. He is the Chairman of the Committee on Defence Questions and Armaments of Western European Union. He will be very well aware, as I am, of a recent report covering a good deal of the material he discussed, which has recently been before that Committee and on which he was able to draw in making his remarks.
The hon. Member was drawing attention to the differences which exist in operating concepts between the two allied tactical air forces in Central Europe, and to the numerical imbalance which exists, and which might be accentuated under present augmentation plans between the aircraft available to the Second Tactical Air Force and the Fourth Allied Tactical Air Force in any conflict. What he said drew upon a good deal of the history in this area which has not altogether been fortunate.
But I think the hon. Gentleman overstated the extent of a problem which the inherent flexibility of modern air power and the establishment of the Allied Air Force (Central Europe) Headquarters is doing a great deal to improve. For example, there are within the Fourth Allied Tactical Air Force quite a number of units which could operate in a very similar way to those in the Second Tactical Air Force. It would be wrong to assume that there is only a very limited capability for aircraft from one allied tactical air force to operate into the areas of operation nominally allocated to the other. The idea that there is such a contrast in philosophies between the aircraft of the Second ATAF and the Fourth ATAF is commonly thought of but is no longer altogether true.
The fact that there are aircraft of the Luftwaffe operating in both the Second and Fourth Allied Tactical Air Forces effects, I believe, a useful bridge. This is not to say that serious problems do not exist, but we must realise that the ideal is not always immediately attainable.
In trying to move towards standardisation, we have to consider whether this is always the best way to use the limited funds at our disposal. I know that on these occasions the argument is brought forward—and it has some validity—that there are some advantages in having a variety of operating concepts because this serves to compound the problems facing the enemy. Suddenly to change to common aircraft and to standardise overnight would cost substantial funds, which are not available.
We have to remember that until further standardisation of aircraft is achieved, which will inevitably be a long-term process, excessive pre-stocking of weapons and equipment would be required to achieve full interoperability between airfields; and that effectively to pre-stock in every airfield in the central front all the ammunition and supplies required would mean the diversion of massive resources.
Maybe more should be done and I hope that the Minister will be able to say what progress has been made by ourselves and our allies in increasing the opportunities for interoperability. It would, however, be unwise to put too


much effort into short-term solutions at the expense of other no less urgent priorities. We should carry out a comprehensive study on flexibility in the central region. I hope that when that is done we can have decisions within the alliance so that action is taken.
The hon. Member for Aldershot referred to standardisation. We should look also at the brighter parts of the future instead of just dwelling upon the multiplicity or aircraft. The introduction of the Jaguar, which is operated by Britain and France, the introduction in the future of the Tornado, and the decision taken by Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway to purchase the F16 suggests that we are moving, at least in some directions, towards standardisation in the alliance.
The hon. Member for Aldershot suggested that there were three different philosophies about the level of command and control within the allied forces and he questioned whether these should be at headquarters level, at Allied Air Force Control Europe at the tactical air force level, or at the level of squadron. Whichever is chosen it is important that coordination be maintained between die land and air forces at the level of the principal subordinate commander. Whatever option is taken, there must be coordination between the army groups and the allied tactical air forces if there is to be adequate support for our ground forces in the field.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the use of the 407L system, which is a ground-based radar system. It is, however, possible for any aircraft with normal two-way radio communication to use that system. It is not a piece of airborne equipment.
As I discovered when I prepared my study for the Western European Union, there is much opportunity for further cooperation among our air forces in Central Europe. It is most important to improve methods of co-ordination and control. That is why I said that the most important thing is to reach a firm decision about the system of airborne early warning and control which I hope has made some progress at the meeting attended by the Secretary of State yesterday or today.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a reassurance that progress is being made here because this is essential to the maintenance of effective air defence in Europe.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. David Walder: The Royal Air Force needs, particularly at this time, reassurance from the Government. Because of its nature, it has always been a sensitive Service. To illustrate that, I shall give an example which may appeal to Labour Members. One of the most disastrous White Papers was the 1957 Sandys White Paper, so-called, which predicted the demise of the manned aircraft. That had a disastrous effect on recruiting of aircrew into the Royal Air Force.
As I think the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) suggested, there has always been a rivalry for aircraft between the RAF and the Navy. Therefore, any suggestion from a Government that the RAF is likely to be neglected is bound to affect recruiting into that Service.
In these circumstances we cannot avoid looking at the programme of the Labour Party Executive, which contains only one item of public expenditure saving that I could find. Needless to say, that is the £1,000 million which it says can be saved on defence. I understand that the Government have denied that that can be done, and I welcome their denial, but I shall be reassured only when I see what happens when that programme goes to the Labour Party conference.
That sort of suggestion receives publicity. There are suggestions that, for example, the MRCA should be cancelled, that there should be a reduction in the RAF's tactical rôles. The morale of the RAF and recruiting are bound to be affected.
It is no denigration of the functions of the other two Services to say that the RAF is a highly-specialised, highly-technical Service. Let us examine the balance between us and the Warsaw Pact nations. In the old days people tended to say that the Warsaw Pact nations had larger conventional forces, more infantry soldiers, more tanks and all the rest but that the West had the technical superiority. If that argument is still true, a great deal of that technical superiority must rest with the RAF. If there were


any possibility of war in Europe it must be the one Service to be in the first stage of any warlike operations. It would provide our advantage vis-à-vis the Warsaw Pact nations.
The Defence Review sets out figures for the RAF reserves, but they are really bogus. There are no reserves for the RAF in the proper sense as there can be for the Navy and the Army. It is an instant Service in its operations.
As there are no reserves, the RAF's need is inevitably for the most modern and most effective aircraft. One has only to talk to serving officers and men to realise that that is the issue that worries them, the area in which they seek reassurance from the Labour Party. They may get it from the Government, but at the same time the party behind the Government is producing suggestions which inevitably reduce morale and cast doubts on governmental promises.
I end with a quotation. It was written by an American admiral, Admiral Mahan, at the turn of the century. He puts the problems before a democratic Government—and I think especially this Government—in a nutshell when he says:
Whether a democratic government will have the foresight, the keen sensitiveness to national position and credit, the willingness to ensure its prosperity by adequate outpouring of money in times of peace"—
we have seen a great deal of outpouring in times of peace, but not especially in this direction—
all of which are necessary for military preparations is yet an open question.
It is indeed an open question at this moment. He adds,
Popular governments are not generally favourable to military expenditure, however necessary, and there are signs that England tends to drop behind.
That may have been the tendency of our nation. It is always a temptation for the Labour Party.
I would explain, however, to hon. Gentlemen opposite that when the quotation refers to "popular Governments" it does not mean well-liked, merely elected—and that, as hon. Gentlemen opposite must know, is always a chancy business.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): The winding-up speeches are due to begin at 9.5 p.m. Three hon. Members still wish to take part in the debate. I think that they may all be accommodated.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: I noted what you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be brief so that the other speakers may be accommodated.
The Royal Air Force will always be associated in the minds of those old enough to remember, with the Battle of Britain and the Few. As usual, when defence is debated, we are once again the few. We may only hope that the quality of the few today is as great as it was in those days.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) in welcoming the Minister to the Front Bench—I also extend a welcome—commented that his hon. Friend was appointed to the Front Bench not so much as a result of his interest in defence as because of his skilled management of the campaign to ensure the election of the present Prime Minister to the leadership of the Labour Party. If that is indeed so, what perils we have avoided in the fact that it was not the Lord President of the Council who succeeded to the leadership, because, if we think about it, the Front Bench would have looked pretty odd in this debate.

Mr. Wellbeloved: To put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest, my promotion was probably due to two factors. The first was my long-term interest in defence, and the other, without doubt, was my good judgment and common sense in supporting the Prime Minister from the beginning to the successful conclusion of the campaign.

Mr. Tebbit: I congratulate the Minister on both counts.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central made one other interesting observation. We know that the hon. Gentleman is a stalwart within the Labour Party on matters of defence. He compared defence with an insurance policy. That is a great mistake. Defence is not an insurance policy. The existence or otherwise of an insurance policy makes no difference to the likelihood of the eventualities under consideration taking place. The lack of


adequate defence makes it absolutely certain that war will break out.
The credibility of the Air Force as a defence force depends primarily on the MRCA, and especially the attack version, with its ability to penetrate deep in poor weather at low levels behind the enemy lines. We expect that the ADV version will be available for interception as well. As to whether it is capable of seeking out and destroying a MiG 25—which has been observed at Mach 2·8—we hope that the Minister of State was right when he assured me that it could. We hope that his words are never tested.
If we are attacked, the course of the battle in Central Europe will depend primarily on what happens to the Warsaw Pact tank forces as they begin to roll forward. That means that the crucial rôle of the Royal Air Force and its allied air forces will be to destroy tanks in Central Europe. In that battlefield situation one of the key airplanes must be the Jaguar because of the numbers involved—200 eventually for us and 100 for the French. My fear is that with the performance of the Jaguar, which is reputed to be about 730 knots at low altitude, and 1·4 Mach at high altitude and with its—for these days—relatively poor thrust-weight ratio, before many years are out it will be easy prey for the depredations of aircraft such as the MiG 23 in its single-seat fighter rôle. The Secretary of State shakes his head. I hope that he is right. But after experience of air war outside Europe, he would be unwise to believe that an aircraft of that performance can look after itself in the years ahead. We do not want to find ourselves operating with a Sepecat Fahey Battle in any combat in the early 1980s.
The most important aspect of today's debate, therefore, is to have some understanding in this House of the Government's intentions towards what is broadly being called Operational Requirement 403, which I understand to be a fighter which can dominate the battlefield scene. That fighter we must have if the Jaguar and other aircraft of similar performance are to have a credible rôle in attack on the battlefield. We know that the Harrier can well keep out of trouble because of its unique performance characteristics, but others we worry about.
If we are to look ahead we should look at the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) on the possibility of the RAF being armed with cruise missiles. If we accepted what is generally talked of these days we would assume that the cruise missile will have a substantial range, that it will move at about 0·6 Mach at very low level and be air-or sea-launched against its target. A question I wish particularly to put to the Minister—and I know he wants to have a word with the Secretary of State concerning these matters—is whether the United Kingdom is in any way constrained from putting cruise missiles into service by any agreement which we have already undertaken or by any agreement envisaged in current talks concerning limitation of armed forces—because sooner or later we shall have to use that type of missile.
Finally, despite the welcome we all give to the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved), and despite the friendly bluster with which he so successfully emulates the Prime Minister—and we like them both for it—and despite all that he has said, the gap between our capability for defence and our potential enemies' capability for attack has never been wider or ever been growing at such a rate. The costs and capabilities involved, the time factor and the amount of money being spent on research and development by our potential enemies mean that we shall have to move very quickly and take decisions very soon if that gap is not to become so wide that it can never be overcome.
We rely, of course, on our American allies, but if we are to do so it is no good saying that there is some magic limit of percentage of gross domestic product that we may spend. If our allies spend more per head defending their population, and even use compulsory military training for their populations, we can have no credibility while we sit back and say, "What it is worth to defend a German is too much to pay to defend an Englishman".

8.55 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: If the House will allow me and the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) will forgive me, I wish to take the last minute paying testimony to the RAF and the Navy for the wonderful, sterling work they have done in the cod


war. If I were to let this opportunity pass, I should never be forgiven by my constituents in Hull and elsewhere on the Humber. They have felt more than thankful when they have heard what has been done, by the Nimrod in particular, in surveillance, in watching and taking care of their men in these dangerous, dark and difficult waters of the Arctic.
On one occasion a boarding party of Icelanders, whom I almost regard as modem buccaneers, attempted to board Maar vessel "Primella". The mere presence of a Nimrod in the area was sufficient to deter them.
I thank the House for giving these few moments to put on the record the thanks of the people of North Humberside and Hull.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I thoroughly endorse the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) to the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and particularly to the pilots of the Nimrod squadron who did such wonderful work. Whatever one may feel about the outcome of the cod war and the Government's part in it, one can only pay tribute to the wonderful job done by our Services in extremely difficult conditions.
I apologise for missing about an hour in the middle of the debate. My old corps, the Royal Marines, is celebrating the birthday of its Captain General by beating retreat on Horseguards. That is my excuse.
It is nonsense to claim that NATO is not worried about our defence cuts. The Under-Secretary has been a member of the North Atlantic Assembly and he knows as well as I do that NATO is extremely concerned especially at our lack of maritime aircraft—which is a reference to the cut in the number of Nimrods —and the effect of Government action on the mobility of our forces, particularly helicopters and the Belfast squadron.
That squadron is our only heavy load carrier. Are the planes to be put in care and maintenance or, like so much of the transport fleet, sold for scrap? They are the only aircraft we have which can carry self-propelled guns or light tanks. Our amphibious force, which will be required on the northern flank in any emergency,

will be severely hampered without this capacity.
In time of war, even the United States has to take over the civil air fleet to send in reinforcements. We have a much smaller air force, so we shall obviously have to take over civil airliners to transport troops to Norway, or wherever they are required. Are preparations being made to ensure, for example, that our airliners are given larger doors so that stores can be loaded easily?
In the last war the Admiralty paid merchant ship constructors subsidies so that they could fit stronger decks to take 6-inch guns aft or anti-aircraft guns. Are we considering paying aircraft manufacturers a subsidy in order to make aircraft adaptable for RAF use in time of war?
We have a world-beating aircraft in the Harrier. We were in danger of repeating what happened with the Comet and the hovercraft which we invented and then passed to the Americans to develop and sell throughout the world.
We have, perhaps, just avoided that situation with the Harrier but when I was at an American air base recently, a pilot who had been testing the American Harrier said to me: "You Limeys are absolutely mad. You have a world-beating aircraft that we cannot touch, and for the sake of a few million you have not fully developed it. We have had it for just over a year and have slightly altered the wings and the position of the nozzles and have got 20 per cent. more lift from the same aircraft". There is a big lesson to be learned there. We must see our successes through to final development.
I hope that our position is now safe. We have the sales to the United States Marine Corps, but perhaps the Minister can tell us what has happened to the order for up to 400 aircraft from the Marine Corps and the U.S. Navy. These are very important and we should like to know when a final decision will be reached.
Perhaps the Minister could also say what has happened about the sales of Harriers to China. Clearly, these aircraft are extremely valuable and I should like to see them sold to the Chinese. I believe it would do a great deal to increase flexibility and money backing for our aircraft industry.
I understand that the Sea Harrier is to be flown by the Royal Navy and the RAF. That is a good thing. I ask the Minister an important question—namely, whether the Royal Air Force pilots who operate the Harrier in Germany will also be capable of operating the aircraft from the decks of Her Majesty's ships and merchant ships. Has he also considered having sufficient reserves of both Harriers and helicopters? That is a vital consideration because in time of war the main menace facing this country would be the Soviet nuclear submarine fleet. A large number of container ships and oil tankers could easily be converted to carry antisubmarine helicopters and Harriers, but it is not much good converting them if we do not have the aircraft.
I hope that that matter will be thought through by the Ministry of Defence as this involves both the Admiralty and the RAF, but it is one of the cheapest and best ways of affording adequate protection for our shipping in time of war.
The only other issue I have time to put before the Minister is that of AWAC, I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper). I believe that the system is of great importance. The decision on whether NATO will go ahead with the project has been deferred until December, but my understanding is that, as late as last March, the view had been taken in the United States that unless there was an agreement to fund $15 million for the long-lead programme, which had to be taken by May, the project might collapse.
May I take it that the $15 million has been funded so as to allow the final decision to be taken next December? This appears to be a matter of fundamental importance and I hope that the Minister will give me an answer tonight. The Americans have funded 10 aircraft themselves. Three are in production and they are hoping to build another 24. They hope that at least 20 will be bought by NATO, each aircraft costing about $40 million. That is a lot of money, but they are basically unique and there will be considerable savings in ground stations and ground radar.
I was influenced by the fact that every NATO commander-in-chief, including SACLANT, said that this weapon system should have the highest priority of all. I

hope that it will be operated and funded as a NATO force, not as a British force or a German force. That in itself is worth paying for so we have a NATO force. I agree that if for one reason or another—probably it would be a financial reason —the project falls through we shall have Nimrod as a fall back. I believe that Nimrod is not big enough to develop in the same way as it is intended to develop the Boeing 707 which is the basis of the US AWACS.
Finally, I pay tribute to RAF Leconfield in my constituency. I do so because by the time we have the RAF debate next year the RAF, after many years, will have left Leconfield. It has had a close association with Beverley, and was given the freedom of the borough. When the RAF leaves Leconfield—and we are sorry that it is going—the Army will take over. We are glad that Her Majesty's Forces will still be there. The RAF has set a fine standard in the East Riding and I pay a sincere tribute to its officers and airmen.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: I have three brief points to raise. The first is the Royal Air Force capability to take part in United Kingdom air defence. I am very worried that we have now only one-fifth the number of aircraft that we had in the Battle of Britain when we face a force 10 times as strong as that which opposed us then from across the Channel.
I am worried that the facts about the strength of the RAF should be withheld from the public. Is it true that this country is defended by only two Lightning Squadrons numbering 24 aircraft and five Phantom squadrons numbering 60—a total of only 84? Even if we add operational conversion units of another 24 aircraft, we still have only just over 100 currently available for our air defence. That is totally unacceptable.
If I am challenged—"Would you be willing to vote for public expenditure cuts while calling for greater defence expenditure?"—I am always willing to take a trade-off of withdrawal of social security benefits for strikers. There is no excuse for not having the required air defence of this country.
I was horrified to learn in reply to a Question on 27th May that 23 Harriers,


56 Lightnings and 15 Phantoms had been destroyed beyond repair in RAF service. Nearly a quarter of the Harrier force and the Lightning force has been destroyed. In the defence programme at the moment there are no plans for the replacement of these aircraft, which are essential for our defence.
It is unacceptable that we should be unable to afford to replace aircraft which are destroyed. The RAF has sometimes been unable recently to carry out demonstration flights for foreign visitors because it did not have enough money for fuel.
My second point relates to the Airborne Warning and Command System, AWACS. I may be a lone voice in this place, but I must preach against this system on the ground that the philosophy is wrong.

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is not alone.

Mr. Warren: I am not surprised that RAF air marshals say that they want an aircraft for this purpose. They said that when the TSR2 was cancelled and went running off after the F111. They always will do so. Good luck to them for taking that attitude. That philosophy is all right for the United States with a large continental land mass and for the Russians, who are already operating an AWACS aircraft—the TU126. It is all right for a continental defence posture.
But we cannot afford to put our air defence system in the sky so far forward that it can be struck down and would be an immediate objective for a Soviet first strike. MiG 25s are now operating, if not over this country as I am told by the Ministry of Defence, very close to it. They are certainly operating over Norway, Denmark and West Germany. They are prepared to put those in the sky so that the Russians would have our vital air defence system taken out in the first strike.
We should remember that the only reason that the Germans did not win the Battle of Britain was that they failed to recognise what radar was doing to defend this country. If they had thrown the weight of their attack against our radar defences, that would have been the end of it for the gallant Few of the RAF. As I hope I have shown tonight, the Few are even fewer today.
The question is not just whether the philosophy is right. I am worried by the way in which our whole attention has been diverted to what we should buy. This is an old American game. Four nations in Western Europe have just been through this and bought the F16—a super aeroplane, but one which does not fulfil the NATO requirement which is called for from these nations.
A competition was run by the Americans on that aircraft as it has been run on the Boeing E3A and the winner buys the only aircraft available. The cost is enormous. My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) must have slipped his tongue when he said that it was $20 million. I have heard estimates of the cost of AWACS varying from $50 million to $135 million.

Mr. Wall: The figure I gave was £20 million or $40 million, which is the flyaway cost.

Mr. Warren: I am grateful. In a presentation in the House recently, Boeing talked about a cost of $50 million, Hawker-Siddeley is talking about $80 million and people in other companies have talked about $135 million. This is all about an aircraft whose philosophy should be in doubt; it should not be a question of what kind of hardware we should buy.
This does not mean that I do not recognise the need for an air defence system, but we have the capability. If we say that we must have an early warning system in an aircraft, the Ministry of Defence already has eight which are gathering dust at Woodford in Cheshire. We have been through this before. Is it the job of the British taxpayer to pay for the workers of Woodford and Manchester or for the workers of Seattle? We must make up our minds. Whatever the value of the pound, the dollars must be bought by the sweat of other British workers while the workers of Woodford and Manchester are on the dole.
We must face the philosophical argument about the need for the system and then decide, if the system really requires an airborne observation post of the kind described, where we should get it. With the European capability, we are foolish to turn away from that opportunity.
The last point I want to make is about the question of future transport requirements of the RAF. I am told that there are no operational requirements for the replacement for Hercules transports in the RAF. I asked the Ministry to look at Europe in this context and the way in which the French and Germans are thinking of re-opening the Transall line. The Americans are moving in with the YC14 and YC15 aircraft, and this is an opportunity for the United Kingdom to get on with projects rather than waffling around nationalising, which will not save jobs.
NATO has a rôle to lead the British aerospace industry and that of Europe into the new field of transport which can be provided. I am calling for more imagination and appreciation of what can be done for the RAF by the Ministry.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: I welcome the new Under-Secretary of State to his job. We all know his interest in defence matters over many years. We accept that having taken part in defence debates over a long period the hon. Member deserves to have his chance to do something about this subject.
Under Labour, defence debates follow a depressing pattern. It is a pattern so uniform that one always has a feeling of deja-vu. There is always the assurance from the Government Front Bench that despite successive cuts, our Armed Forces are becoming more and more effective. On the other hand, however, with the occasional notable exceptions, we usually have a string of Labour Back-Bench speeches calling for greater cuts in defence expenditure. Fortunately we have been spared this tonight. Perhaps it is because there is no vote, and because it is a Thursday.
On this side of the House we fully understand the pressure which is put on defence Ministers in a Labour Government by their left wing. We do not understand how anyone who is closely in touch with defence matters can consistently give way to that pressure. It is all very well for the Government to spell out the threats with which we are faced. They have gone to some lengths to do just this in two White Papers in the last two years. But if in the end they ignore the extent of the threat and make cuts which are based on financial calculations

and considerations, as opposed to military ones, it makes a nonsense of the entire defence policy, and confidence in that policy is steadily eroded.
We all know that this country is living beyond its means and is getting further and further into debt, and that cuts in public expenditure are vital if we want to return to a healthy economy. If I, for instance, should find myself in such a position, or getting into such a position, I would start by cutting out my luxuries. I would then move on to non-essential expenditure, however desirable it might be. However, I would not cut out my insurance policies, as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) has rightly said. Yet this is exactly what the Labour Government do every time they make arbitrary cuts in defence expenditure. This is the answer to those who chide us for being inconsistent on the question of Government expenditure. We have made this claim over and over again and we are glad to know that the hon. Member for Fife, Central agrees with us.

Mr. William Hamilton: No.

Mr. Goodhew: At least he is against cutting out our insurance policies. he shares that with us.
The Royal Air Force has suffered immensely damaging cuts under this Government. It seems to have been singled out not for severe surgery but for what looks like rough butchery—[Interruption.] It is extraordinary—[Interruption.] The moment I get to my feet the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) comes into the House —I do not know where he comes from—and interrupts from a sedentary position. I hope that since I have given time to other hon. Members and am left with limited time for my own speech he will remain silent.
It is extraordinary that the Royal Air Force should be singled out for this sort of treatment when one realises that it has the unique rôle of supporting both the other Services. The Army is entirely dependent on the RAF for the rapid deployment of men, weapons and equipment, whether overlong or comparatively short distances. It also needs air cover and support in any land battles. Similarly, the Royal Navy cannot have a credible maritime strategy without the surveillance provided by the RAF.
The need for air power is becoming greater as the years go by. First there is the strike capability, which is an essential part of both our nuclear and conventional deterrent. This surely must be kept at a credible level, and we have had discussion about the MRCA in this respect. I am glad to welcome the wholehearted commitment given by the Minister today to the future of the MRCA.
There is then the transport capacity. This is more difficult because the Government have reduced it by 50 per cent. in the defence review. I know that there has been a withdrawal from east of Suez, but surely the transport fleet is vital for reinforcement in Germany in time of war. The former Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force made a remarkable statement in last year's debate. He said:
Members have expressed fears, in the wake of the Defence Review, that our transport forces may be inadequate. As I said earlier, even after the extensive reductions the United Kingdom will still have the largest transport fleet among our European allies, and that the transport fleet will remain capable of carrying out its priority NATO tasks. An hon. Member raised the question whether, in an emergency, we could reinforce BAOR on a large scale. I must tell the hon. Member that, frankly, for a long time large-scale reinforcement of BAOR has depended on the availability of a civil airlift, and the position after the Defence Review is no different from what it was before".—[Official Report, 24th June 1975; Vol. 894, c. 367.]
It cannot be "no different" from what it was before when the Government have reduced the fleet by 50 per cent. Ministers are being misleading if they talk like that.
We come now to the need for the airborne early warning aircraft. Here there is a difference about whether one should go for the Boeing AWACS, or whether the Nimrod conversion is the answer. The Boeing AWACS seems to be at a very high price, and there are Nimrods available which could easily be converted and replace the ageing Shackletons and Gannets.
We then come to home defence. It is vital in war time to be able to secure one's home base because everything else falls apart if one cannot do that. In peacetime there is the need for interdiction of Soviet aircraft which are constantly probing towards the British air space to see how good our capability is. The next

rôle is the protection of our transatlantic routes, both air and sea. The Minister mentioned the Soviet Backfire aircraft, a wide-ranging aircraft of very high performance with stand-off missiles. This may well be the principal attack weapon against shipping rather than the submarine fleet which is at the moment a great menace.
Lastly, we come to surveillance, whether of our oil rigs or gas installations in the North Sea or of submarines within our waters—

Mr. Russell Kerr: Where did you get this speech?

Mr. Goodhew: I wrote it myself. If the hon. Member does not like it he can go back to where he came from.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) not to interrupt from a sedentary position.

Mr. Goodhew: This last capability is essential even in peace time. We have had mention of the vast Soviet fleet of 330 operational submarines, 130 of them nuclear powered, and we all know that one of these nuclear powered submarines is being completed every five weeks. These are posing a permanent threat to our sea routes and it is against this background that I find it quite incredible to believe that the RAF can afford to lose 25 per cent. of its Nimrod aircraft. I am astonished that the Government are still prepared to make this cut of 25 per cent. in our vital maritime reconnaissance aircraft.
We have the NATO commitment in the Eastern Atlantic and we know perfectly well that it is a big responsibility. Hon. Members in this House have heard from some of the other NATO countries that they view with anxiety our ability to cover this commitment in the Eastern Atlantic. We know from our White Paper about the withdrawal from the Mediterranean and we wonder how far it has gone if at all, and when it will take place.
Personally, I am astonished, as are other hon. Members, to find that when one looks at the maps in the White Paper they still finish at the Tropic of Cancer. I wonder why it is, after Angola, that the Government are not facing the


fact that we cannot look upon the Tropic of Cancer as the limit of the interests of the NATO countries. When we have the imposition of a minority Government by Cuban mercenaries, armed by Russia, taking place in an area of such importance in the world, we cannot sit back and say that NATO is not interested.
Since the White Paper it has been discovered that Soviet defence expenditure over the past decade has been some 60 per cent. more than estimated That means that the quality of their aircraft, and the quality of their other weapons, is much higher than we have probably estimated. Has the Government had second thoughts about the size of our own forces? We read in the Labour Weekly of the Labour Party National Executive's desire for £1,000 million cuts including the abolition of MRCA altogether. I am glad to have had the opportunity of reading the Secretary of State's answer. He has given a pretty robust one in the latest issue.
He admits that we are well down the list in respect of the amount of money we are spending compared with our NATO allies but he goes on to say that, if we made massive cuts, we would risk unravelling the NATO Alliance and destroying the security which we gain through it. He stated.
The effect on our financial credit and our economic and trade relations would be incalculable.
That is the answer to hon. Members who suggest that one should think first of the economy and last of defence, which some hon. Members opposite are inclined to do.
What are the Government going to do for the future? What are their intentions? We are told that the RAF has been tailored to fit its rôles in NATO and the home defence at this moment. Can the Under-Secretary assure us that there will be no more cuts in the light of this? Each time we are told it is now just right, but each time we find it is followed by cuts. We have had the White Paper about MBFR. Can we be assured that, having had the unilateral cuts in the RAF to such an extent, we shall not have the RAF featuring in MBFR?
We have talked about cuts in spares. Is there sufficient back-up for the front line?
We worry about the airfields which are being given up. Has NATO a use for them? Many of the NATO squadrons are far too close to the front line for comfort. On airfields which we are using, are we going ahead with hard shelters for the aircraft up to NATO standards? This is an urgent matter.
We have been told about the cutback in fuel and the resultant lowering of flying hours. Those to whom I have spoken say that we have just about reached the limit and that no further cuts can be accepted.
Turning to the use of expensive weapons, one wonders how the Service feels about them. I am unhappy about the situation. I believe that, if men work on simulators all the time, when they come to handle expensive weaponry to fire their one or two shots a year they are likely to be highly nervous. I know from a recent visit to the Royal Artillery School at Larkhill that the chaps using Blowpipe have to fire two rounds a year. They get so up-tight about the idea of firing such expensive weaponry that their first shot is useless, and they get back to their normal form when they take their second shot.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown): The hon. Gentleman is doing the men less than justice.

Mr. Goodhew: I am not doing them less than justice. This is what they say. The hon. Gentleman has probably been to Larkhill. I hope that he has talked to the officers there.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Has the hon. Gentleman talked to the men?

Mr. Goodhew: I have talked to other ranks as well.
I turn now to some of the human issues raised by hon. Members which are important to the morale of the forces.
The first is the education of children. Many Service men want to send their children to boarding school. It seems that some local education authorities will not give grants for that purpose. Yet members of our foreign service get these grants. Should this be the responsibility


of local education authorities or of the Services. I hope that the Minister will tell us what he feels about that matter. It is worrying to parents. We cannot expect a Service man to give of his best when he has additional family and financial worries.
We have talked about tax relief on mortgage interest. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us that he will be getting down to this matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It is ridiculous to say that a man who is living in married quarters in Germany is living in his principal place of residence. His real home is back here. He certainly should not suffer the loss of tax relief on mortgage interest whilst he is stationed abroad at the behest of his commander. That is an additional unnecessary burden on men in our Services.
We have heard about capital gains tax. The Under-Secretary will be glad to know that a sailor has won his fight on capital gains. he does not now have to pay the £500 that was being demanded by the Inland Revenue for having sold his house because he had let it whilst he was posted elsewhere.
We have heard about the problem of local authority housing. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) seemed worried at one stage that, because there are bases in her area, the local authority would have to take on the housing of too many people. The hon. Lady suggested that Service personnel should be allowed to apply to have their names put on housing lists in any places they wish throughout the country to relieve her constituency. Later she said that an independent Scotland would bring Englishmen and Welshmen roaring into her beautiful country and constituency to live there. I do not know how she thinks they will be housed if others cannot be housed now.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: We already house them.

Mr. Goodhew: Turning to airmen's quarters, the barrack blocks which I see as I go around do not look very different from those which I entered as an air-

craftman second class on 1st September, 1939. I hope that it is appreciated that they require urgent modernisation.
One other matter that worries me relates to the officer intake. It appears that immediate promotion to flight lieutenant rank is given to those who are university graduates entering the service, whereas non-graduates enter as pilot officers. I remember that after a while I graduated to one thin ring on my sleeve. If it is possible to make the selection to promotion to squadron leader on merit on the basis of the man as a member of a team regardless of whether he has had a university education, why is there this discrimination at the outset of his career? When it comes to selection for squadron leader, does the person who came in as a graduate with flight lieutenant rank and with a number of years' seniority in that rank stand a better chance than the man who came in at the same time and who has had the same years of service but who it not a university graduate? The Prime Minister spoke yesterday about the disadvantages of not having a university education. Therefore, I hope that we shall not discriminate against those in the Services who have not had a university education.
I should like the Minister to tell the House how the manpower reductions are progressing. We understand from recent statements that redundancies are expected to be less than the 4,000 originally stated. May we be told something about the retraining of transport air crews, who have been among the forerunners of those who have been leaving the Service? In view of the present difficulties facing the civil airlines, with the collapse of some organisations, those personnel will have little opportunity to continue in posts which in the past they have served on a civilian basis.
Last year in a similar debate the then Minister responsible for these matters answered a very few questions in reply to the debate and said that he would merely write letters to hon. Members concerned. I know that these matters are difficult, but I hope that since the Minister in opening the debate had a carefully prepared brief to read, he will now be able to devote his reply to answering some of the many questions which have been put to him.
Before closing, I should like to pay my tribute to all those who serve in the Royal Air Force and in the Women's Royal Air Force. I have visited many RAF stations, and many hon. Members will know that those visits tend to restore one's faith in human nature because one encounters such a fine breed of person. They are people who are prepared to serve their country willingly as volunteers and they display great spirit.
High-ranking officers, including the Chief of the Air Service, have given sombre warnings about the need to strengthen and rebuild air defences. This is vital to the security of this country. I am encouraged to see that those senior officers, unlike the present Government, not only spell out the threat but face up to the implications of such a threat for the Royal Air Force. We welcome the new Under-Secretary of State in his post and we wish him well. We hope that he will lend an ear to what is being said by those high-ranking chiefs in the Service who have spoken out so courageously in the interests of this country.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Wellbeloved: With the leave of the House, I should like to try to reply to the many points raised in the debate. First, I wish to thank all those who have been courteous enough to welcome me in my new post. I appreciate their kindness and the gentle way in which they have dealt with me in this debate.
I have a shrewd feeling after 10 years in the House, when I glance around and see familiar faces, that my winding-up speech may not necessarily be as courteously and as nicely received as my opening speech. But as the day passes in this place I know myself how much one needs to take refreshment in order to survive a long ordeal.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: You have had experience.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have had no such experience.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I should have thought, Mr. Speaker, that any impartial observer of the scene who has already witnessed the last few moments would be in no doubt as to my allusion in my last few remarks.

Mr. Clement Freud: rose—

Mr. Wellbeloved: If I may put the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) at rest, in no way do I refer to him. Since he came in I have not heard him make any abusive or intemperate remarks to me. But if he wants to intervene at this stage, I shall be delighted to give way.

Mr. Freud: I simply wondered whether this might have been a "commercial" for the Catering Committee.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Every little helps.
I turn now to the more serious aspect of the debate. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) referred to an incorrect answer that he had received. I have taken steps to check. I think that he was referring to the Harrier accident of 19th January this year. The hon. Member is correct about that Harrier accident. It involved two aircraft, and this fact was acknowledged in an answer on 26th January. I hope that he will accept the apology of the Department for the error.
The hon. Gentleman also queried the position of Nimrods in the Mediterranean. The fundamental reappraisal of all our defence commitments during the defence review led us to the conclusion that we should withdraw from certain non-NATO commitments. Thus it was announced in the statement on Defence Estimates last year that while we would retain our membership of CENTO, we would no longer declare any forces to that organisation.
It was also explained that the Canberras and Nimrods would, when military facility agreements there expired, be withdrawn from Malta by 1979. But, as the hon. Gentleman himself said in his speech when he made the suggestion, there ought not to be a need to repeat the contents of last year's White Paper in debates of this nature.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the Jaguar and Harrier replacement, as, indeed, did the hon. Member for Ching-ford (Mr. Tebbit). Both the Harrier and Jaguar have only recently entered service and should not need replacing for some years to come. It is right, however, that we should be entering into studies of the operational requirements which will exist when they come to the end of their useful life. This, obviously, is being done, but it is far too early to suggest


what the precise nature of any replacement aircraft will be.
As the hon. Member for Chingford said, the Air Staff Target 403 is now going through its conceptual stage and will shortly be going into more detailed definition. I cannot at this stage give the hon. Member any precise details, because precise details do not at this moment exist. But I can assure him that the Air Force Board and the Ministry of Defence are well aware of the need to find a replacement in the late 1980s, in all probability, for the Jaguar and Harrier, and that steps are being taken now to ensure that the right consideration goes into it.

Mr. Dalyell: Some of us are more interested in Nimrods at Lossiemouth than at Malta.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Hear, hear.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister confirm that a separate Nimrod squadron at Lossiemouth is absolutely impracticable?

Mr. Wellbeloved: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I have a note or two on his very interesting contribution, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). I was hoping to deal with that in a moment.

Mr. Tebbit: rose—

Mr. Wellbeloved: I do not want to give way too many times, because I have a lot of questions to deal with in the time available, but if the hon. Gentleman assures me that it is an important point, I shall give way.

Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to the Minister. I would not wish to interrupt him otherwise. As he seems to put the operational date for the AST403 well into the 1980s, will he say what he thinks will be the fighter to maintain superiority over the battlefield around the year 1980?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I will not go into the details of that matter. The AST403 is at the conceptual stage and it would be foolish for a non-professional member of the Ministry of Defence Air Force Board to go into those details.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) raised a number

of important points about morale in the Air Force. I am glad that he emphasised that because the men matter even more than the machines and organisation.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about proposals for assisted house purchase. A limited scheme is in operation and we have repeatedly examined the possibility of introducing a more radical way of helping airmen to buy a home when they leave the Service. One could scarcely discriminate between some members and others and an overall scheme could only be introduced at enormous cost to the Service vote, at least in the early years. I have therefore no good news for the hon. Gentleman on this matter, but I am entirely sympathetic with his view.
I will give further thought to it and if it is humanly possible to devise a scheme, we shall do that. I should be misleading the hon. Gentleman if I held out any great hope that I shall be more successful than my predecessors, who have given the matter careful consideration in the past.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) spoke about Service men who leave the force and then have to find a house for their families at the end of their service. I agree that it is not easy for a Service man. He must be encouraged to register his need for a house with a local authority as early as possible if he wants council accommodation.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment issued a circular a year ago emphasising to local authorities the difficulties which men face in securing houses when leaving the Services. The circular asked local authorities in particular to request registration without insisting on residential qualifications, but not all local authorities have accepted the spirit of the Secretary of State's circular. It is incumbent on all hon. Members to try to encourage the local authorities in their areas to accept their responsibility for men who have served their country in the Armed Forces.

Mr. Henderson: Has the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for Scottish housing, issued a similar circular?

Mr. Wellbeloved: It is normal practice for the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland to issue circulars of that


nature in conjunction with the Department of the Environment. I cannot give a categorical answer, but that is normal practice.
My hon. Friends the Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and Fife, Central and the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn raised many interesting and fascinating questions about the possibility of Scotland having its own armed forces. I am sure that they would not expect me to get deeply involved, during a technical debate on the Royal Air Force, in the wider, but none the less important issue of the political future of Scotland. I have received a letter on that subject from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian and it is receiving careful attention in the Department. Indeed, the Minister of State has now taken over the heavy responsibility of co-ordinating the replies from the three Service Departments and no doubt he will be in touch with my hon. Friend in due course.
I say to the three hon. Members from Scottish constituencies who have spoken in the debate that in the Ministry we appreciate the long, valuable and loyal service of the many Scots in the three branches of our Armed Forces. We hope that for centuries ahead the United Kingdom will have the benefit of their services in the defence of this country on a basis of mutual security.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) asked about the London Air Traffic Control Centre at West Drayton. As indicated in the Defence White Paper, we have started on a programme of planned improvements to the United Kingdom air defence ground environment, including provision of new radar as well as tracking and data handling. The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) chuckles. He came into the debate very late. I hope that if I can gallop through all the serious points I shall be able to deal with his as well. The tracking and data handling equipment is to be financed in part from NATO infrastructure funds.
These improvements will ultimately make us independent of the London Air Traffic Control Centre. The new system will consist of elements which if necessary can operate independently of each other and provide overlapping cover.
Plans are also in hand to improve our airborne AEW protection, thus offering the possibility of a greater degree of all round radar protection by the co-ordination of inputs from ground and airborne radars. Further radar protection will be available when the air-defence variant of the MRCA enters service. With its powerful air intercept radar, this aircraft will provide radar cover up to long range from our shores. The aircraft will be capable of operating autonomously without ground control.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), in a very thoughtful and well-researched speech, asked what savings had resulted from the use of simulators for flying training. They are an integral part of the training of pilots and crews on all advanced modern aircraft, such as the Jaguar. While they greatly reduce the number of flying hours required in the aircraft as pilots undergo flying training or operational conversion for new aircraft, the question of cost comparisons does not arise. But I appreciate my hon. Friend's constructive interest in this important aspect of our training philosophy.
My hon. Friend also gave statistics comparing the military strengths of the Warsaw Pact and NATO, and fairly put the position as his researches had disclosed it. But not only has the numerical strength of the Warsaw Pact air forces increased enormously in recent years, as my hon. Friend recognised, but the latest Warsaw Pact aircraft have a greatly improved range and payload capability compared with their predecessors. The latest generation of Russian-built tactical aircraft can carry at least twice the payload at least twice as far as could the earlier generations of Soviet planes. That means, among other things, that the Warsaw Pact's capability of delivering weapons on targets in the United Kingdom from bases east of the East-West German border has more than doubled in the past five years.
Therefore, it is not just a numbers game. It is more a question of ability, capability and capacity. In that respect, we face in Western Europe and in the United Kingdom a new threat based upon an ability of the Soviet Union now to reach these shores, to penetrate our air space, and to deliver massive weapon


loads on the soil of the United Kingdom. Any hon. Member or member of the public who had doubts about the MRCA programme should ponder on that fact. We have an absolute responsibility to ensure that we have a capacity to defend the airspace over this country.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) made an interesting contribution. Time does not permit me to deal with all the points she raised, but I thank her most sincerely for the effort that she and many other hon. Members put in when they visit Service establishments. I am particularly mindful of the valuable effect that visits by hon. Members have on the RAF. The men and officers look forward to contact with Members of Parliament.
It is a two-way street in which we may learn more about the Armed Forces as a result of the information we gain in these visits. Equally, if not more, important, Members of Parliament may begin to understand the problems that confront Service men. They may see that the Armed Forces are comprised of men and women from all walks of life, and that the class barriers which may have existed years ago have now been completely eroded. On my visits I meet many commissioned and non-commissioned officers and junior ranks who come from good, working-class homes. I say this to my hon. Friends. They neglect those people at their peril.

Mr. William Hamilton: I presume that the Minister referred to the morale of the Armed Forces. He will recall that I gave him warning about an individual case in which I was interested but which I omitted to mention. Will the Minister indicate what is being done about it? He will recall that Corporal Clark served in the Royal Air Force for 14 years. His wife left him and he now has sole charge of two young children. He wishes to leave the Service, but the Royal Air Force is solidly saying "No". That is not the way to keep up morale.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am glad that my hon. Friend intervened. I take this opportunity to thank him for his kind words when he addressed the House earlier. I assure my hon. Friend that though he had doubts about my ability to read a brief, I have his letter in which he refers

to the case before me. I read the departmental brief carefully. I understand it.
After careful consideration, due to changed domestic circumstances since accepting a further offer of re-engagement, Corporal Clark is to be exceptionally allowed to revert to his former 12-year engagement, and his discharge date from the Royal Air Force will be 5th July. I am delighted to give that information to my hon. Friend. I hope that he will convey it as quickly as possible to his constituent. he may be slightly late as the means of communication in the Royal Air Force are speedy.
A number of hon. Members raised the problems faced by Service men as a result of the operation of the Rent Act and Finance Act. I am aware of the impact of the Rent Act 1974 and the Finance Act 1974 on Service men who are buying their houses on mortgage but who are prevented from occupying them when posted away. Others in civilian employment which requires frequent movements are in a situation similar to that of the Service man house-owner. The issue has been repeatedly raised with me during my visits to Royal Air Force stations.
We have taken steps to ensure that Service men are safeguarded to the extent possible under the terms of the Act. Any questions about amending the Acts are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I shall be happy to supply information about the effect of the two Acts upon the Royal Air Force to my right hon. Friends if they require it.

Mr. Onslow: Will the Minister give the undertaking which I requested in the debate on the Army—that an effort will be made by all the Services to collect the information through the official channels available to them and to present it in a coherent and well argued form to the Department of the Environment as part of the review which the Department is undertaking of the workings of the Rent Act?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I shall certainly convey that request to the Secretary of State for Defence, who has the overall responsibility for the three Departments.
In answer to my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) and Walsall, South let me say that NATO can play a great rôle in disaster relief. I shall not go into the detailed reply that I have before me, because of pressure of time, but I shall give my own brief evaluation of the situation. A great number of problems confront the RAF as a result of reductions in Support Command and transport arising from the defence review, but if it could be arranged through NATO—a committee of the Military Council is considering the whole question of NATO being involved in disaster relief—I am sure that the Ministry will bend over backwards to try to ensure, subject to operational ability, that the RAF plays a part in such relief.
I am sorry that I was not present to hear the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop), but I can assure him, as I assured his hon. Friend, that I am absolutely aware of the difficulties and the anguish caused by the decision about Aldergrove and Sydenham. There is nothing that I can personally do about that, but I shall ensure that the Secretary of State's attention is drawn to his request.
I shall consider the many points raised by the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) and see whether I can do anything to assist.
I want to spend my last few moments on the subject AWACS. This is a major project. A number of NATO nations could be involved in this new airborne warning system to replace the Shackle-ton in the early 1980s. We are currently examining the possibility of participating in that NATO force. I believe that it will

represent a major step forward in terms of standardisation if it is a NATO solution. I welcome the comments by hon. Members who support this concept. I have discussed it briefly with the Secretary of State and I can tell the House that, whatever the outcome of the AWACS solution, we intend to reserve our national position on this important issue.
I was less sympathetic to the point of view of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew). I am mindful that my right hon. Friend has spent the last two days commuting back and forth, first to the Eurogroup and then to the NATO Defence Planning Committee, because of what I consider to be a pretty irresponsible piece of behaviour by the Opposition in not ensuring that Her Majesty's Government's business can be conducted throughout the world at important conferences because of their petty political partisan attitudes. If they are concerned about the defence of the United Kingdom, the best contribution that the Opposition could make would be in ensuring that my right hon. Friend and other Defence Ministers can go about the world trying to ensure co-operation between this country and the rest.
If I may de-escalate again in the last few seconds, I would say that I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) for his tribute to the RAF and the Royal Navy in respect of the cod war. The hon. Member for Hastings can rest a little more reassured tonight. Had he been in the House when I made my opening speech—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS)

10.1 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle): I beg to move,
That the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before the House on 11th May, be approved.
The purpose of the draft Order is twofold. Substantially, it is, first of all, to put into effect the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Review Body on Industrial Relations which reported in 1974 and, secondly, to begin the process of bringing the law of Northern Ireland relating to industrial relations into line with the present legislation in Great Britain. The Order is bulky. I will endeavour to restrict my speech and opening remarks to the bare essentials but I am afraid it is a fairly comprehensive field to cover. Also there is the issue of the Report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments to be raised.
The Review Body to which I have referred was established in 1971 by the then Northern Ireland Minister of Health and Social Services. It was comprised of 10 representatives of the Confederation of British Industry in Northern Ireland and the entire Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions as well as representatives of the Department of Manpower Services. During the period when the Review Body was in operation, the Industrial Relations Act of 1971, of unhallowed memory, was in operation in Great Britain. That Act, I am happy to say—and I am sure the people of Northern Ireland were very happy too —did not apply in Northern Ireland and consequently Northern Ireland escaped the monstrosities inflicted on the industrial relations field which that ill-begotten piece of legislation perpetrated on Great Britain. Instead, I am happy to say, representatives of employers and trade unions in Northern Ireland together considered what action should be taken.
The approach of both sides of industry in Northern Ireland to this problem has been a model of how to conduct such an exercise. Whether one agrees with the consequences or not is another

matter but the method by which the report was achieved is a model to us all on how the two sides of industry should work together. There has been a willingness to work together and pay regard to each other's susceptibilities. There has been an absence of dogma and realisation of the limitations of law in the industrial relations field.
As I contemplated their activities I realised how wise I had been to join in opposition to the Industrial Relations Act from the moment of its conception to its unlamented death. They proposed that the system of industrial relations in Northern Ireland should continue to be based on voluntary principles. I am very grateful that I get support from the Opposition Front Bench, because there was a time when they would not have supported that statement. The report of the Review Body was unanimous, another great achievement for the industrial relations system in Northern Ireland. This was a considerable achievement and I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Review Body for the important contribution it has made towards the fostering of good industrial relations in Northern Ireland.
Following the publication of the Review Body's report, the Industrial Relations Act 1971 was repealed and major new legislation was enacted for Great Britain, but not at that time for Northern Ireland, in the form of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Acts 1974 and 1976 and the Employment Protection Act 1975. Many of the provisions of those Acts cover matters on which recommendations were made to me by the Review Body on Industrial Relations. As respects those matters, the Order follows closely the provisions of the Westminster legislation to the maximum extent that is compatible with the Review Body's recommendations.
Many employers' organisations and employers and many trade unions operating in Northern Ireland are off-shoots and extensions of the same bodies which operate in Ireland or Great Britain and I am sure everybody will agree that it is in the interests of all concerned, and of the avoidance of confusion, that there should be no unnecessary divergence between the law and practices on these matters in Northern Ireland and the law in the rest of the United Kingdom.
However, the Trade Union and Labour Relations Acts and the Employment Protection Act go rather further than the Review Body's recommendations. In particular, they introduce a wide range of new rights designed to protect workers in their employment. It is Government policy that workers in Northern Ireland should enjoy these rights no less than their counterparts in Great Britain and to enact legislation to that effect as quickly as possible.
It has not proved possible to do that in this piece of legislation. We have selected those parts of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act and the Employment Protection Act which are of particular value to employees in Northern Ireland in the current difficult economic circumstances and have produced them in this Order. The remainder of the legislation will be introduced in subsequent Orders which are now being prepared as rapidly as possible by the Department of Manpower Services.
I am aware that the CBI in Northern Ireland wished this legislation to be confined to the implementation of the recommendations of the Review Body. However, the Government have not been able to accept that view, and in the light of the CBI's responsible attitude to the discussions throughout, I think it is entitled to a word of public explanation.
First, the measures of the Employment Protection Act have been approved by the Parliament at Westminster and form part of the industrial relations practice of the greater part of the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is part. I believe there are great advantages, whatever one's views on individual provisions, in substantial uniformity of practice in these matters throughout the United Kingdom, and I believe that this coincides with the CBI's views. But such a position does entail accepting obligations as well as benefits.
I think also that the survival of Northern Ireland's economy depends on the success of the British Government's counter-inflation policy and of the action on wage costs, and those policies apply in Northern Ireland. If anything, the survival of the Province's economy is even more dependent on the success of those

policies. This is part of the social contract, which includes the measures of the Employment Protection Act. Once again I do not think the Province can opt out of general practice in the United Kingdom. The draft Order was published as a proposal for public comment in October 1975 in accordance with the usual procedure. In consequence of comments received, amendments have been made to it.
In response to a request by the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, provision has been made in Article 16 for the bestowing on the Labour Relations Agency of functions which are now performed by the Department of Manpower Services. The Agency is established by this order, which says not that these functions will be transferred to it but that they may be transferred. In time they probably will be.
It means that the Agency is likely to be very similar to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service which has been set up for action in this field in Great Britain. These provisions will enable the Department's conciliation functions to be transferred to the Agency. That will correspond to the new service in Great Britain.
The unfair dismissal provisions have been brought fully into line with the corresponding provisions of Westminster legislation. Finally, provisions have been inserted giving employees rights to protection in the case of the insolvency of their employers and in the handling of redundancies. These rather gloomy necessities are of especial importance in the current economic situation.
At this juncture it is normal to explain the contents of the measure in some detail, but I shall limit myself to touching on one or two of the main themes. First, Part II of the order, together with Schedule 1, provides for the Labour Relations Agency, which is one of the main objects of the Order and one of the major groups of recommendations to come out of the Industrial Review Body. It will be a body corporate consisting of a chairman and nine other members appointed by the head of the Department of Manpower Services. Three of the members will be appointed


after consultation with employers' representatives and three after consultation with representatives of trade unions.
Article 5 states that it is the general duty of the Agency
to promote the improvement of industrial relations, and in particular to encourage the extension of collective bargaining"—
that received full support from the Review Body—
and, where necessary, the reform of collective bargaining machinery.
The Agency can also undertake research, provide advice on industrial relations matters and undertake concialiation in relation to trade disputes which cannot be settled through the existing governmental machinery. It will discharge functions relating to the application of the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 1963 in sectors of industry where pay is low and the Act cannot be invoked. It will review and advise on arrangements for industrial relations training.
Article 7 gives the Agency functions relating to the settlement of trade disputes about the recognition of trade unions. Article 8 enables a claim to be submitted to and an award to be made by the Industrial Court where, contrary to a recommendation by the Agency, an employer fails to recognise a trade union. That again was regarded as one of the keystones of the Review Body's recommendation that trade unions should be recognised.
The Agency has no powers to enforce the acceptance of its views, but it will provide a constant source of advice and assistance in all industrial relations matters. I hope that in that way it will make a valuable contribution towards the well-being of industrial relations and thus towards the Northern Ireland economy. One of the reasons for the Agency being created in addition to all the conciliation and arbitration machinery was that the Review Body felt there was an overwhelming case for the creation of a body with investigative powers. In that sense none of the existing machinery available to the Government gave the power to investigate and probe a situation before producing a solution to the problem. It is thought that in that respect the Labour Relations Agency will be helpful.
Part III of the Order confers upon Northern Ireland employees certain rights and protection for their employment which exist in Great Britain under the Trade Union and Labour Relation Acts 1974 and 1976 and the Employment Protection Act 1975. They have been selected for their appropriateness against the current difficult economic background. There is statutory protection against unfair dismissal which follows closely the provisions of the relevant Westminster legislation. It provides for remedies for unfair dismissal by way of complaint to industrial tribunals. It will be for the employer to show that dismissal was justified.
Article 22, as recommended by the Review Body, indicates grounds which will be ruled unfair. Grounds which will be ruled unfair include membership of an independent trade union and taking part in trade union activities. There is a guarantee, in so far as legislation makes that possible, against victimisation in those circumstances. The Order contains safeguards to ensure that the unfair dismissal provisions which it contains will not preclude the making and operation of closed shop agreements.
The employee of an insolvent employer will be able to obtain rights to the payment of debts from his employer; for example, arrears of wages, holiday pay and pay for statutory minimum periods of notice where the employer has become insolvent and the firm collapses, a situation which, I regret to say, happens too frequently in the Province these days. These rights will be provided for by the Department of Manpower Services, which will then subsume the employees' rights against the employer.
A duty is laid on employers to consult trade union representatives about the redundancy, and a timetable for doing so and the steps to be followed are also laid down.
Part V of the legislation contains a group of miscellaneous and supplementary provisions, of which I shall mention a few. Article 64 brings the law in Northern Ireland relating to liability for tort back to the position that obtained in Great Britain immediately before the passage of the Industrial Relations Act 1971 and after the legislation which was passed to remove the effects of the case


of Rookes v. Barnard, which hon. Members may recall.
Article 67 touches on a point which was of considerable interest when the equivalent legislation applicable to Great Britain was going through the Palace of Westminster. The Article provides that, with appropriate modification, any Press charter in force in Great Britain relating to the freedom of the Press in Great Britain will apply to Northern Ireland. This arose from the closed shop provisions in the legislation applicable to Great Britain, and the issue was essentially a national issue. It is appropriate that action should be taken in Northern Ireland in accordance with that taken in Great Britain.
I understand that there may be deep feelings on this subject, both for and against, but it would be unwise at this juncture to have separate provisions in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain generally. I have received no representations from Press, television or radio representatives in Northern Ireland re-question a different provision in Northern Ireland from that which exists in Great Britain. That reinforces my point that it is a national rather than a Northern Ireland problem.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I apologise for harking back, but it is sometimes difficult to know in an exposition of this sort when the Minister will pass from one Article to another. The Minister said that the immediately preceding Article, No. 64, had restored the law to the condition in which it had been before the 1971 Act, which he had previously indicated had not applied in Northern Ireland. It is a little difficult to see why that is not contradictory. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will elucidate that a little further.

Mr. Moyle: Yes. It was thought that throughout the United Kingdom there was to be a wide exemption from tortious liability for acts committed in trade disputes throughout our industrial relations history after the First World War until the Rookes v. Barnard case in 1962. That case cast doubts on that situation. After 1964 an Act was passed reversing the situation which Rookes v. Barnard might have been thought to have brought about. That reversal

existed for the United Kingdom until the Industrial Relations Act 1971. The Act passed in 1964 did not apply to Northern Ireland, so we have taken the model of the Great Britain law as it was between the repeal of Rookes v. Barnard and the commencement of the 1971 Act, and we are now seeking to apply it to Northern Ireland.
Article 79 raises the problem of the application of the Order to Crown employment. When the corresponding provisions of the Employment Protection Act were debated in Committee, the Minister of State for the Civil Service made it clear that it was the Government's intention that civil servants should receive essentially the same benefits under the Act as do employees generally. He gave an assurance that the Government would normally observe recommendations of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service on recognition, and its decision with appropriate recommendations on recognition for Northern Ireland. I give the same assurances in respect of this Order.
Schedule 2 contains provision for calculating normal working hours and a week's pay.
Part I of Schedule 5 implements recommendations of the Review Body by amending the Wages Councils Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 with a view to fostering the development of collective bargaining machinery to replace wages councils in sectors of industry where they are needed at present. We are fully aware of the problems here. Wages councils were set up to protect the low-paid. It has been found that in practice there have been those which do not do this and sometimes recommended wage rates are below supplementary benefit level. It is felt that the creation of proper collective bargaining machinery should solve this problem.
Part II of the schedule amends the Contracts of Employment and Redundancy Payment Act (Northern Ireland) 1965. Part III amends other Acts, consequential to the provisions of the Order.
I turn to another issue raised in connection with this and other Orders—the Twentieth Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments relating to Northern Ireland secondary legislation. Some people seem to have got hold of the


wrong end of the stick with regard to this report. The Belfast Newsletter is in this category, although I cannot blame the paper because these matters are somewhat technical and are not widely understood outside the Palace of Westminster.
The Committee was not criticising the way in which this Order is being handled tonight by the House. That is not to say that this procedure has not been criticised, because it has been frequently by hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
It is not fair to say of the procedure for Northern Ireland Orders that they are laid before the House for one-and-a-half hours' debate with no opportunity to amend them. Every major Order, and perhaps every Order is first made available in proposal form and there is consultation and the opportunity for amendment. I consulted hon. Gentlemen opposite on the details of the Firearms Order in a personal capacity and I must say I found it a very pleasant occasion as we gathered on the Terrace together while I heard their point of view. The Select Committee criticised the procedure under direct rule. It poined out that what would have been an Order-in-Council in Stormont gets reduced in stature to a Regulation under direct rule. What would have been a Bill at Stormont becomes an Order under direct rule. As a consequence of this, some Northern Ireland Instruments may escape the parliamentary process. The procedures, however, are fully formulated in the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 so that, in effect, they are legal and constitutional. Second, the regulations are made under the authority of the Secretary of State, who is answerable to this House. Third, the Regulations and Instruments are examined and reported upon by the Examining Officer, who is a Northern Ireland official with the same terms of reference as the Select Committee.
The Government admit that the present situation may well lead to a less-than-satisfactory state of affairs, and they are approaching that fact with a view to seeing what close approximation to parliamentary perfection we can achieve. In short, the Government, and particularly my right hon. Friend, wish to be as helpful as possible in these matters.
The 1974 Act will soon fall to be renewed in this House, and in the context in which we are speaking my right hon. Friend is reviewing the procedures in the light of the circumstances of direct rule to see whether they can be improved. I therefore ask the House in the circumstances to bear with him.
I must enter one reservation by emphasising that there are real problems here and that I cannot commit my right hon. Friend as to the outcome of his review. He wishes to be as helpful as possible, however.
This is a long and in some respects a complicated Order. It is the outcome of a great deal of deliberation and consultation between representatives of employers and trade unions in Northern Ireland and the Department of Manpower Services. The draft Order is of considerable importance to the wellbeing of Northern Ireland from both a social and an economic point of view, and I hope that it will be approved by the House tonight.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: In spite of some of the remarks by the Minister at the beginning of his speech, we agree in principle with the Order. He reminded us in a standard fashion of the 1971 Act and said that it did not apply to Northern Ireland. He is now, however, proposing in this Order a dose of Socialist medicine for Northern Ireland, and I hope that Northern Ireland is aware of what is coming to it.
The Order is of immense importance to Northern Ireland and there are many here waiting to speak if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who will have close knowledge of the province and will be able to make a contribution to the debate, and it is a good thing that we have the time for that.
I want lo refer to the hon. Gentleman's reference to the Report of the Joint Committee of both Houses on Delegated Legislation. Were it not for the unsatisfactory procedure to which he has referred, there would be even more detailed examination than we are able to have tonight.
I want to deal later in my speech with the Report and to refer in particiular to


Article 16 of the Order, which is referred to in the Report and which concerns the wide powers of the Department of Manpower Services.
The Minister paid tribute to the Review Body for a very enlightened report. It is a pity that the Government did not adopt more of the report's recommendations. It is pleasing to note that it was unanimous and that in this case the CBI and the trade unions in Northern Ireland were able to agree over such a wide area of industrial relations. Their recommendations were framed for local conditions. The Minister made clear that the Order does not adopt those recommendations in certain very important respects. For example, Recommendation 18 says:
Any changes introduced into the arrangements for the conduct of industrial relations in Northern Ireland should be specifically designed for and thus suited to local needs and conditions.
A separate standard and system of industrial relations for Northern Ireland is envisaged there. It cannot be said that this Order achieves that.
While we welcome many parts of the Order, we question whether it meets the Review Body's requirements in that respect. The Review Body's report was good sense. One can look at in the context of the history of industrial relations in Northern Ireland. It will be conceded by everyone that in the past industrial relations have generally been good compared with other parts of the United Kingdom. The strike rate has traditionally been around half that in Great Britain. That is borne out by the Review Body's report. In particular, official strikes have been rare and the unions have played a responsible rôle in co-operating with the Government. The good industrial relations of Ulster have often been cited as one of the major attractions for potential investors.
The hon. Gentleman has told us that the social contract and other Socialist economic policies will apply to Northern Ireland. We wonder whether they will succeed in helping the present economy of the Province.
Since 1970 there has been in Northern Ireland, as there has been in other parts of the United Kingdom, an upturn in the number of working days lost in disputes. In 1974, in particular, there was

an alarming increase in unofficial strikes, excluding the UWC strike. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) asked about this on 25th February 1975. One sees from the Minister's answer that the number of unofficial strikes in Northern Ireland rose from 54 in 1973 to 102 in 1974. When replying, will the Minister of State give figures for the subsequent year, 1975, for official and unofficial strikes and working days lost, to see how the situation compares with that answer to my hon. Friend?
There is obviously a strong case, and the Minister of State has made it, for modernising the statutory basis for industrial relations in Northern Ireland in various respects.
The Review Body stressed the importance of a voluntary and widely accepted system. We would like to see that process continue. The draft industrial relations Order produced last year represented that attitude and was based on the Review Body's report. It was not proceeded with, and it was decided to bring Northern Ireland within the net of Socialist trade union legislation, including elements of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act and the Employment Protection Act. To some of us those Acts do not seem to be inspired by quite the same basis of co-operation of a specifically Northern Ireland character which has been built up over the years. We express our anxiety about how this will turn out as far as actual labour relations are concerned. What was the point in setting up the Review Body if its recommendations were to be ignored?
This was an area where there was held, on all sides, to be a case for separate treatment in 1971. Why is it a case for different treatment today having regard to the fact that the Industrial Relations Act, which the hon. Gentleman disliked so much, did not apply to Northern Ireland? What is the point of changing the attitude to separate treatment having had a draft Order which applied the Review Body's recommendations?

Mr. Moyle: Would the answer not be that if Northern Ireland had been treated the same as Great Britain in 1971 it would have had to adopt the Industrial Relations Act? No, having got the same treatment, it has to adopt our Employment Protection Act and the Trade Disputes Act?

Mr. Neave: It did not have to adopt the 1971 Act and it was not imposed on it. But, like it or not, it will have to adopt these various Socialist Acts. There may be some good points in them but the people of Northern Ireland should fully understand what is happening.
I should like to ask the Minister of State some questions and to refer again to the Joint Committee's Report on delegated legislation.
First, I want to ask about the closed shop. The hon. Gentleman said that the Order will not preclude the closed shop in Northern Ireland. What will be the position of persons who wish to object on conscientious grounds to union membership? Will it be precisely the same as on the mainland? We regard this as an important point, especially since there are likely to be a number of religious objectors in Northern Ireland.
What is the position in regard to the law if the Order is passed by the House? The Minister should tell us how he views the situation.
Is there any danger of confusion of the arbitration and conciliation roles of the Department and the Agency? Do they overlap? To whom is there an appeal against an arbitration decision? The hon. Gentleman referred to the Article regarding the different roles of the Agency and the Department.
The next point concerns the status of Agency recommendations. For example, will ACAS codes be quoted in evidence before tribunals? Does that apply to Agency recommendations?
Finally, has there been any investigation of the additional costs to industry in Northern Ireland as a result of the Order? That point arose in regard to legislation which is now applied to Northern Ireland through this Order. This is important in a Province where industry has special problems. Therefore, it should merit special consideration from the Government.
We have heard that the Government are planning to introduce a second Order-in-Council on industrial relations in Northern Ireland to bring about complete parity between the law there and in Great Britain. This first Order does not cover some aspects of the Employment Protection Act 1975 and the two Trade Union and Labour Relations Acts

—in particular, rights to guaranteed payments, maternity pay, time off and a number of other points. I think there was a recent Press release on this matter which I read.
There appears to have been little consultation with members of the Review Body, which has been meeting from time to time, since it produced its report on these most recent amendments. To what extent has there been consultion with the Review Body on the additional points? To what extent has agreement been reached? We hope that the second Order-in-Council will not be brought before the House without that consultation taking place.
Will the Government give an assurance that their proposals on maternity pay will be in line with the amendment to the Employment Protection Act which was discussed in this House? That is one matter which should be the subject of consultation with the appropriate authorities before the Order is introduced.
I conclude by a reference to the Twentieth Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Minister said that consultation had taken place on some of the Statutory Instruments. It would be a good thing if the process were to continue. While direct rule continues, it is necessary to see to it that there is a sufficient parliamentary process in respect of what is, in effect, primary legislation. That was one of the most important points made in the Report of the Joint Committee. We are here dealing with primary legislation. If the Minister of State hopes to get "a closer approximation to parliamentary perfection", he will have to move a good way forward in reviewing these procedures. We hope that he will find some method by which direct rule should seem less remote in respect of the procedures in this House.
We understand that some of the many Northern Irish Instruments made by the Permanent Head of the Northern reland Department escape any parliamentary process. What consultation will take place with Opposition parties in this House on this matter before any action is taken in reviewing the procedure and before legislation is introduced? This must be regarded as a House of Commons matter. We should like to know


what action the Minister proposes to take in that respect.
I am sure that other hon. Members will wish in this debate to bring to bear their more detailed knowledge of industry in Northern Ireland. We do not oppose the Order in principle.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. McCusker: It would be churlish of me if I did not thank the Minister's colleagues in the Whips' Office for their consideration and co-operation in ensuring that we did not have to debate this important order at four or five o'clock on Tuesday morning. I hope that the Minister will convey our thanks to his colleagues. I hope that that move reflects the growing unease at the way in which Northern Ireland legislation in this House is being handled.
I hoped to quote the Twentieth Report of the Review Body in the course of my argument. However, having heard what has been said about the Report, I shall not risk making the same mistake as did the Belfast Newsletter.
I wish to emphasise the fact that it is not right that a piece of legislation of this kind, which has been described as primary legislation, should get second-rate treatment. The situation can be highlighted by comparing the treatment that will be given to the Fair Employment Bill in 12 or 13 hours' time. That Bill will have received a Second Reading and will have had some 30 hours in Committee, and another full day's debate tomorrow. The Bill will at best be marginal, at worst it will be costly and damaging, and in reality it will be a cosmetic exercise, whereas this Order will set the course of industrial relations in Northern Ireland for generations to come. Nobody would deny that the Fair Employment Bill was greatly improved by its progress through the praliamentary process, and I am sure that this Order could have been given the same treatment.
One might almost ask "Why waste our time here at all? Why not have consultations with all the necessary bodies and bring the matter to the House and say "We know that this is good for you'? "If that kind of reasoning is not applied in Great Britain, it should not apply to Northern Irish measures.
I must admit that we have a few more minutes than usual tonight to debate this matter, but we are still left in the position that, although we can welcome the order, deplore it, or highlight words here or there, there is nothing we can do to change or improve it.
I join the Minister in paying tribute to the Review Body and its members. When we now read that report, some of it sounds a little "old hat", but it should be remembered that the Review Body comprised representatives of employers and workers, who said on page 6 of the report:
The Government should not seek to compel harmonious relationships within industry. The means for achieving improvements in industrial relations in Northern Ireland lie not in a major new statutory framework requiring conformity but in a voluntary process.
In 1972 that sounded much more up to date than it does in 1976. If we still had the Parliament in Northern Ireland, the legislation recommended in the report would have superseded much of the legislation contained in the Employment Protection Act and the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) lament the fact that perhaps we shall have to go slavishly step by step with the Parliament here. I recall that his Government destroyed the means whereby Northern Ireland could benefit from having a legislature of its own to examine things in detail and perhaps come up with slight variations.
I share to some extent some of the hon. Gentleman's reservations. I ask the Minister to take this comment from someone who perhaps does not have the same degree of prejudice at others. I felt that the original order perhaps should have been dealt with as an Order containing within it the agreed recommendations of that working party. I say that in the full knowledge that I support the view that workers in Northern Ireland should enjoy the same rights and privileges as people here. I would not argue that they should not now be entitled to protection against unfair dismissals in cases involving insolvent employers, the handling of redundancies, and so on.
Hon. Members from Northern Ireland have had to deal with too many of these cases recently. We frequently receive a call from a local factory asking if we can do something to help people who have


just been given two weeks' notice. We hope that the provision will ensure that when this sort of thing happens Members of Parliament and others will be able to make proper representations on their behalf.
When it comes to guaranteeing workers a written statement of reasons for dismissal, it is incredible that we have to write this into legislation. The Fair Employment Bill will become the Fair Employment Act, but if written reasons are not already being given to employees, they should start to receive them at once. It will be needed under that legislation, quite apart from the Order.
There are many similarities between the parts of the Order based on the report of the Review Body and on the Employment Protection Act. Throughout the report of the Review Body this assertion of a voluntary system of collective bargaining is repeated time and again.
On page 57 it is repeated that
the Government's role should be primarily to support the voluntary system of collective bargaining.
A voluntary system of collective bargaining now has the same meaning over here as a voluntary coalition has in Northern Ireland. It is just as voluntary as the Government allow it to be. As long as there is a £6 limit or a 4½ per cent. limit, the degree of voluntarism is rather restrained.
There is another aspect about which I should like an explanation in regard to the Order and to some extent the Employment Protection Act. I refer to the definition of a trade union official. In the first part of the Order, on page 6, "official" is defined as meaning something in relation to a trade union. On page 39 that "official" becomes a "trade union representative", and that is defined in another way.
Will the Minister tell us if there is any particular reason why we cannot have the same terminology throughout the Order? Is it necessary to have an official in a trade union in one part defined in a certain way and a trade union representative defined in a different way in another part? Partially the answer is that the part in which "trade union representative" is used is almost a complete transfer from the Employment Protection Act into the Order. The terminology is

carried over. But surely it would have been tidier, in doing this, to use the same definition for the particular person or persons throughout the Order.
I am pleased that the report maintains that conciliatory processes and control should remain with the Ministry. I hope those conciliatory functions will not be transferred to the Labour Relations Agency. It was obvious from the debate on industrial relations in Great Britain that industrial relations here were, and probably still are, riddled with mistrust and suspicion. But that was not the situation in Northern Ireland. That is why the report states:
An essential feature of the conciliation service is the accepted independence of its officers. On this basis a relationship of trust has been built up between the Department's conciliators, employers and trade unions.
If that basis exists already and the same problems of mistrust do not exist in Northern Ireland, I suggest that the Minister should continue to keep his finger in the pie.
The conciliation service of the Department of Manpower Services provides a sounding board for the Minister, and I would not like to see that function transferred to the Agency. If it were, the Government would be totally uninvolved in industrial relations. Why not build on that admirable base? That trust should be maintained. One could almost ask that if there is already such a basis of trust within the Department, would it not have been possible to build on that base rather than to set up another agency? However, I accept that the stage could be reached where the Government could not provide the necessary detailed service. I accept the necessity of an agency to deal with industrial relations training, research, and collective bargaining arrangements in the low-pay sectors. What are the Minister's thoughts on that aspect? Achieving a collective bargaining system for the low-pay sectors is a problem. I hope that Article 16, which transfers those powers of conciliation, will not be used.
The Minister mentioned the desirability of duplicating Great Britain legislation in Northern Ireland. When I heard him talk of the benefit we gained from not having an Industrial Relations Act, I thought that we should preserve that situation. There is room for special consideration to be given to Northern Ireland, Voluntary negotiations between the two parts of


industry can result in agreement. Many recommendations in the Review Body's report already coincide with the Employment Protection Act. Any further legislation should be based on that rather than another Order being brought before the House.
A major item in the report is not covered in the Order—the disclosure of information. The report states:
If collective bargaining is to be on a sound basis, management and unions should have adequate information about matters to which the negotiations refer.
Paragraph 256, referring to the functions of the Industrial Relations Agency, says:
Other functions would include responsibilities in assisting parties in disclosure of information cases.
There is a complete section, from paragraph 322 to 326, dealing with disclosure of information.
I appreciate in some respects why it has not been covered in the Order. Obbiously, the Minister will simply take that section dealing with disclosure of information out of the Employment Protection Act and duplicate it in the Northern Ireland context. But I ask him to ponder the wording and the attitude taken towards disclosure of information in the report, a report produced with the agreement of both sides of industry. Its wording is one of co-operation, of agreement, of arriving voluntarily at something which both parties think is essential.
Perhaps it is just the difference between the language of a report and the language of legislation, but the Employment Protection Act is couched in such terms as
For the purposes of all stages of such collective bargaining…it shall be the duty of the employer…to disclose…on request
certain information. Later it speaks of
The collective bargaining for the purposes of which an employer must disclose information under subsection (1)".
Throughout Section 17 there is an aspect of compulsion on the employer.
The problem of disclosure of information, which was recognised and covered in the report, could have been handled in Northern Ireland by the Agency. The basis of trust and the necessity for the disclosure of information are already established. The report suggested that Problems with individual employers and

trade unions could be referred to conciliation first, and if problems remained at the conciliatory stage the Agency could become involved to bring the two sides together. The Minister should carry out consultations in Northern Ireland on this problem, based on the thinking evident in the report on both sides of industry, and see whether this important aspect of disclosure of information can be handled in a different way from that in the Employment Protection Act.
As the hon. Member for Abingdon said, that Act can be seen as being heavily biased towards the workers' side of the negotiations. I say that as someone who understands it but can stand back and say it. The 1971 Act was obviously management-biased, but all the legislation in the past two years seems heavily biased towards the other side. In Northern Ireland that split has not occurred. We have tried to act by agreement and consent.
The only other reservation I have about the legislation which the Minister will be introducing concerns maternity payments. I expressed my reservation on that during the debate on the Employment Protection Act.
Northern Ireland has had an evolving system of industrial relations based on agreement and consent. It still has a higher proportion of unionised workers than Great Britain, despite the closed shop. We still have fewer days lost. It is a situation which should be cherished. I hope that the Minister will not think that that situation can be improved simply by rubber-stamping Great Britain legislation. I think that he understands the problem and is trying to avoid it.
Despite those cautionary words, I give a welcome to the Order. I am sure it will be appreciated in Northern Ireland, especially by the workers.
We look forward to an early opportunity of discussing other legislation, though not, we hope, in the same way.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I should like to express my gratitude to the Government and particularly to the Leader of the House for arranging this debate. This is the first time a Northern


Ireland Order has been discussed in the House when there is other business to follow. For a change, we shall not be leaving last. It also indicates that there may be some other hon. Members who are interested in the development of industrial relations in Northern Ireland.
Unlike the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), I welcome every comma, sentence and clause in the Bill. It is to the credit of Northern Ireland that the review body was set up under the Stormont Government.
Throughout the years when there was vicious confrontation in Great Britain between workers and the Government, who were engaged in a very real struggle, we had reasonable men in Northern Ireland who, despite the atmosphere of violence, death and destruction and the very high unemployment there, could sit down together and reach conclusions acceptable to both sides of industry.
It was not always so. I remember the years when the trade union movement and the Government in Northern Ireland never had discussions and there were many confrontations, though not to the same extent as those between workers and the last Conservative Government here.
It was only many years after a Labour Government had repealed the Trade Disputes Act 1926 that it was repealed in Northern Ireland, and it was only when the current Lord O'Neill became Prime Minister that the Government in Northern Ireland agreed to recognise the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. This was violently opposed by many Unionists, but I think they would accept that a fairly happy relationship was established between the Government and the trade unionists.
That was more difficult in Northern Ireland than it would have been here because we have always had severe unemployment with thousands of people underpaid. In such circumstances, the employee is always open to exploitation by the employer. That is why I am delighted to see the provisions against unfair dismissal and the right of the Agency to inquire into the low wage rates in Northern Ireland.
There are more people on low wages in Northern Ireland than in any other

region of this country. The fact is that there are more people in Northern Ireland than in any other region of the United Kingdom claiming family income supplement. The supplement is paid to those who are employed but not receiving a wage that allows them properly to maintain their family. That is an indication that people in Northern Ireland want to take up employment. They do not want to make themselves a burden on the social security agencies.
The hon. Member for Abingdon said that the Order is a dose of Socialism which is being imposed on Northern Ireland. The CBI in Northern Ireland has not voiced any objection to me or, as far as I know, to any other Member representing a Northern Ireland constituency. The Northern Ireland Committee of Irish Congress of Trades Unions welcomes this measure. The CBI and the trade union representatives sat on the Review Body on Industrial relations and gave their support to what is now before us. The Order has not been in circulation for a long time but it is known to employers and the trade union movement in Northern Ireland. As yet I have not heard any strenuous objection being put up against it.
I am bound to say that the Order does not go all the way. I voice a concern that is felt by the trade union movement in Northern Ireland. The Minister said that he envisages bringing forward another Order. Let him bring it forward as soon as possible. The trade unions in Northern Ireland are worried that some important sections of trade union legislation which exist in every other region of Great Britain do not apply in Northern Ireland. I refer specifically to codes of practice, disclosure of information, guaranteed payments, suspension on medical grounds, maternity provision, time off work for trade union activities and itemised pay statements. The powers that the Department will be able to confer on industrial tribunals, especially on the Labour Regulations Agency, are of particular importance. These are all important parts of trade union legislation.
The former Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), was made fully aware by his discussions with the trade union movement of the misgivings held by prominent trade unionists


in Northern Ireland about defects in industrial relations. It was fully understood that the industrial relations legislation would be exactly the same as in other parts of the United Kingdom. I know that my right hon. Friend had a happy relationship with the trade unionists. With his own background in industry, he knew what was happening in Northern Ireland. He realised more than most—he was one of the first Labour Northern Ireland Ministers to be appointed in the former Labour Government—the state of the economy. He saw the thousands of unemployed and he was aware of the low wages being paid. He dedicated himself to improving the position of employees. He tried to create conditions in which there would be more people employed than unemployed.
An important measure which we hope to see in a second Order is the bringing into operation of the health and safety at work provisions. There are important parts of that legislation which have yet to be applied in Northern Ireland. There are many old industries throughout the whole of the Six Counties where it is a real danger to be employed. In this respect Northern Ireland falls behind other parts of the United Kingdom. There have been several accidents caused by defective machinery and defective standards, and further accidents might be avoided if the legislation became effective. It is in the interests of employers that they should not have defective machinery, and they should be helped to secure that end by financial assistance and other means. The worker in Northern Ireland is entitled to the protection afforded to the worker in any other part of the United Kingdom.
Since these discussions took place, the Sex Discrimination Act has become applicable in Great Britain. I hope that the Order will make most of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act applicable to Northern Ireland. Why has there been such delay?
Trade unions have reservations about the functions of the Labour Relations Agency. They would like the Agency to have power to create an atmosphere in which negotiations can be conducted. The Ministry of Manpower Services has that responsibility, and it would be strange if that power were to be retained by the

Ministry. It would make the Ministry responsible both for the interpretation of Government pay policy and for arbitration and conciliation. The two functions are contradictory. The Ministry should retain responsibility for the interpretation of Government pay policy, but conciliation should be reserved to the Agency.

Mr. McCusker: I accept that there will be a problem of demarcation between the Agency and the Ministry. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a relationship of trust has been built up over the years between the Ministry and both sides of industry? The retention of the conciliatory function will enable the Ministry to keep a toe-hold in industrial relations, which would be useful. It might be possible to lay down the demarcation line so that the Ministry still performs the conciliatory function while the Agency gets on with the many other functions conferred upon it.

Mr. Fitt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that we do not want to create an atmosphere of unrest or hostility between the officers of the Ministry and the trade unions. But it would be contradictory for officers of the Manpower Services Ministry responsible for interpreting pay policy when an argument arose to change their hats and act as conciliators. That should be the function of the Agency.
The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr McCusker) referred to the lack of consultation. Three weeks ago, before the recess, we were told that the Order was to be discussed in the House on the following Monday, and we made representations. It was the unanimous view of all Northern Ireland Members that we should have time to read the Order and discuss it with people with an industrial background who knew more about it. Would the involvement of a Northern Ireland Member in these discussions have improved the Order and made it more acceptable?
Only recently the Irish Congress of Trades Unions expressed grave misgivings about how hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies voted against the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill on Second Reading and again, in effect, last week. I understand


that hon. Members opposite from Northern Ireland are in receipt of a communication from a union in Northern Ireland begging them to behave themselves in future and not to vote in such a silly way. So I do not believe that discussions with representatives from Northern Ireland would in any way have bettered that Bill.
The Government have now introduced this first Order. As I understand the situation, and from my consultations, I think that it will be acceptable to both sides of industry in Northern Ireland. But there are still many facets of industrial relations legislation in other parts of the United Kingdom which do not apply to Northern Ireland, and I urge my hon. Friend to bring forward the second and third Orders with all possible speed.

11.17 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I start by making a comment on the way this legislation was brought before us. The Minister said that in some cases it was less than completely satisfactory. I congratulate him on the genius of that expression. It is not echoed from this Bench. Many Order-sin-Council placed before the House have been brought before it in a very unsatisfactory way.
We appreciate that when the hon. Gentleman laid the draft of the Order relating to firearms he consulted us. We appreciated those consultations not only for ourselves but for those bodies interested in the Order which held certain views which could only get to the Minister through their elected representatives here, and rightly so.
But there is grave worry in Northern Ireland about some of these Orders—especially, as has been said by the Select Committee about those outside the parliamentary process and especially about Regulations made under Acts of the old Stormont Administration and the old Assembly. There is no opportunity in this House to pray against those Regulations or in any way to discuss them. It is not only in that matter that there is a degree of concern among the representatives of Northern Ireland here.
Even though one may accept or reject what the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has said about whether consultations are valuable or not, it is essential that the elected representatives should in some way express in some part of the

parliamentary process what the people who have elected them have said to them. It is essential that we get that message across to the Minister.
I am aware of the difficulties in this matter. We appreciate every effort which has been made by the Government to hear the elected representatives of Northern Ireland, to facilitate them in this House, and to help them to put the views which have been put to them and which they feel are worthy of expression and argument on the Floor of the House or to be put privately to the Ministers concerned. We await the review which the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State are making of these matters, but, with the best will in the world, it must be conceded that if this Order were a Bill it would be a lengthy one. We would be discussing its articles as clauses and going into them line by line—to use a scriptural expression, precept upon precept. It would be a very lengthy scrutiny. That we cannot do. The way in which these orders are laid is completely unsatisfactory to many of us. I hope that in some way that will be remedied. We look forward to hearing exactly what the Minister has in mind.
I am sorry that the Government do not see their way clear to stick rigidly to the principle of uniformity for the whole of the United Kingdom. Many of us have very little objection to uniformity if the Minister could guarantee us step-by-step legislation. We would welcome uniformity in principle in regard to legislation in this House. Many of us have said that we would rather see some of the Bills which are laid before this House applied to Northern Ireland and thus have the opportunity to discuss them on the Floor of the House and use the parliamentary procedure.

Mr. Moyle: This is an interesting point of view. But as a member of the Northern Ireland Convention the hon. Gentleman argued for a devolved Government for Northern Ireland, and he was a substantial author of the Convention's report. What he is arguing now is not entirely compatible with that report.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We must take the situation as it is. I am not for direct rule. I would like to see it brought to an end as speedily as possible, and I make no bones about that. But I do feel that the Minister cannot argue that the best


way to do things, now that we have direct rule, is not to do them through the parliamentary process.

Mr. Moyle: I take on board what the hon. Gentleman is saying. We have direct rule at the moment. One thing that all parties in the Convention agreed on was that there should be devolved government for Northern Ireland. In these circumstances it is right for the Government to hope that we shall be able to meet that unanimous request. If we can, a Northern Ireland statute book will be carried through, and we must have regard to that statute book and the way in which things might operate.

Rev. Ian Paisley: With due respect to the Minister, whether he makes laws for Northern Ireland by the proper parliamentary process or by this process does not really make any difference to the argument. They will still be the law in Northern Ireland. In view of what is happening in Northern Ireland, and the fact that Northern Ireland is not properly represented numerically in this House, it would be better if the full parliamentary process of passing Bills were carried through in respect of our legislation. If the Minister thinks about that, he should concede that it is better to do it in a parliamentary way, whether or not we disagree about how Northern Ireland should be governed eventually.
On these Benches we are not opposed to the workers of Northern Ireland having the same conditions as those in other parts of the United Kingdom. The majority of the people in Northern Ireland are working-class people and we on these Benches are hereby virtue of their votes. These people make up their own minds and vote in their own way. No one section of a community has any right to dictate to an elected representative what he should do on a particular issue. He must live up to what he said when he was elected. The hon. Member for Belfast, West referred to the way some of us voted on nationalisation. Is he aware that the Northern Ireland Committee of Trade Unionists is in opposition to the trade unionists of the Belfast shipyard? The latter want the Belfast Shipyard to be included in nationalisation, but the committee is mute—I do not know whether out of malice—on this issue.

Mr. Fitt: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the actions of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford)? On Second Reading of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill he said that he was opposed to it, that it was not a panacea for the economic ills of Northern Ireland and that, therefore, he would be voting against it. He then complained of a serious omission because the Belfast yard was not included. He promised that an amendment would be moved in Committee to get it included. How can the hon. Gentleman reconcile those actions?

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Belfast shipyard is already nationalised. We are not dealing with a private enterprise company. We say that it should be put into the British family. I do not know whether the hon. Member wants it put in some other family. The people working in the yard want it in that family, and so do the Sandy Scotts of this world.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: We must distinguish between nationalisation as a concept and the implementation of nationalisation in such a way as to place Harland and Wolff in an invidious position. If a distinction of that kind is drawn it is easy to explain the point raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I remind the House that, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) himself hinted, it would be out of order to develop this point. We are discussing industrial relations in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I apologise Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was led up a cul-de-sac by the hon. Member for Belfast, West. He often does that to people, and it is good to get down again on to the Queen's Highway.
We on this Bench want the very best for the workers of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) told us that this was a dose of Socialism. I do not accept that. This is a fair and proper charter for employers and employess, who agree with it. I have had no lobby from Northern Ireland employers knocking on my door saying that they object to it because it is a piece of Socialist legislation.
I have met employers of all kinds in Northern Ireland. In my constituency I have some of the largest employers, and they are happy with the contents of the Order. There are minor matters which they would like to see different but I am glad that the workers in Northern Ireland will be adequately safeguarded. They need to be safeguarded more now than ever, because the only thing people have in this situation is their job. A job is a valuable thing, and more than valuable in Northern Ireland because of the unemployment situation there.
I welcome all the safeguards. I attend many industrial tribunals and appear for people there. I pay tribute to the tribunals in Northern Ireland and the people who work there. By that process, people have found that they have the opportunity to state their case and to bring in those who can help them state their case. Justice is done, and is seen to be done, to them. It is a happy system and has been the way out of many difficulties.
There is a good relationship between employers and employees. Even the hon. Member for Belfast, West had to admit that, although there were great difficulties, there was still this good relationship. I should like to pay tribute to the conciliation work done by Dr. Quigley and others associated with him. Some of us who have experience in this area know the good work done in conciliation by the Department of Manpower Services. I agree that these powers should be retained by that Department. The words "may be" are used and not "shall be". I trust that when the time comes for the new Agency to be set up and all the factors are considered there will be unanimity, after consultations, that power should be handed over, because we have found in Northern Ireland that it is easy to pull down but very difficult to build up.
We have something which is working and I should not like hands to be put to it which would destroy it without something as good being provided in its place.
I would ask the Minister how the Order affects the working of the Safeguarding of Employment Act. The Act provides that people not born in Northern Ireland or married to a Northern Ireland citizen can be refused

employment. I wonder how it affects a person who has become employed and afterwards it is found that someone born in Northern Ireland could have had the job, with the result that the first person finds himself dismissed and his permit not renewed. Was that taken into consideration in drawing up the Order? This affects not only people from Eire but those born in parts of the United Kingdom outside Northern Ireland. I should like to see those born in other parts of the United Kingdom treated in the same way as those born in Northern Ireland. I do not agree with this provision of the Safeguarding of Employment Act, which tells against United Kingdom citizens.
I trust that when we come to consider other legislation in this area we shall have more time to study those parts which interest us. I trust that one part of this legislation will not have to be used too often—the part about the insolvency of employers.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Almost every hon. Member who has taken part in this debate has referred to the undisputed fact that, in general, industrial relations in Northern Ireland for some time past have compared very favourably with those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
All people who come from Northern Ireland have a tendency to dwell upon the disadvantages of the situation in Northern Ireland and of all the other characteristics of that part of the United Kingdom. But there are factors which weigh on the other side, and undoubtedly in the maintenance of employment and the attraction of new industries, which goes on, as it is going on today, even under the most adverse circumstances, one of the most important forces of attraction is the knowledge on the part of potential entrepreneurs that they are likely to enjoy better industrial relations in any part of Northern Ireland than they could rely upon in the rest of the United Kingdom. So I think that we should count our assets as well as our deficits when we cast up the balance sheet of Northern Ireland.
Almost everyone who has taken part in the.debate—and I join them—has also expressed appreciation of the managers


of Government business for ensuring that we begin our deliberations at a somewhat earlier hour and that we have occasionally been privileged to have the fleeting attendance of some of our colleagues from the rest of the United Kingdom, whom I may be addressing on a different subject in another hour or two.
But there is another arrangement for which we should also express our recognition. It is that, I think for the first time—certainly it is extremely rare—by virtue of the suspension of a Standing Order we are able to have a longer debate on this very substantial Order than the hour and a half which is normal. Although I recognise that that was only appropriate to an Order of this importance, I am sure that the Minister will not dispute that there is no substitute for real legislation and that even if we spent on the discussion of this Order not the two or two and a half hours which we probably shall spend but the whole night we still would not be giving it—bearing in mind that it is basic legislation on the first order—the attention which legislation receives in the parliamentary process.
The Minister referred to the Twentieth Report of the Joint Select Committee. Hoping to avoid some of the inaccuracies into which the Belfast Telegraph so haplessly fell, I shall follow him briefly in doing that. Of course, he was quite right to distinguish what are two essentially different problems. The one to which the Report primarily, though not exclusively, addressed itself was that Northern Ireland legislation which altogether escapes the possibility of parliamentary control. I am sure that we were all very glad to learn that the Government were hoping to find ways, before the renewal of the interim constitution, whereby at any rate we could alleviate the disadvantages of that position.
I have in a previous debate suggested that one way might be to be able to bring before the House or before a Committee the very excellent official scrutiny reports—of which there are five to date—of that legislation which are produced by an official in Northern Ireland.
However, the other aspect upon which the Joint Select Committee touched is more important and is, of course, directly

germane to this debate. That is that the greater part of substantive legislation applying to Northern Ireland is made by Order-in-Council and, therefore, without benefit of the normal parliamentary processes. Here it may be useful—I am aware that the Government have by no means been idle in reflecting upon this problem in previous months and I wish to recognise the fact that they have made no secret of their desire to bring about an improvement—if we could divide the legislation to which we wish to give better treatment into three categories. The first category is legislation which is related wholly to Northern Ireland—not only related wholly to Northern Ireland but in the form of amendment or extension of Northern Ireland legislation on the Northern Ireland statute book, to which the Minister referred in an intervention. Probably we would all agree that in that category we have available at present no practical or reasonable alternative to the procedure of Order-in-Council under the 1974 Act.
Then there is legislation for Northern Ireland which is of novel importance, which breaks new ground, and which establishes a new code or law. We had an example of this in the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill. That Bill contained one example of the right way to do it. One cannot read this Order-in-Council without being repeatedly struck by echoes of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill. The reason is that in both cases a new code is being established—a new code governing the whole area of industrial relations and the law of employment. Of course, it was right that the fair employment code, if it was to be introduced at all, should be introduced by Bill, as it was in another place, and go through all its stages in both Houses. We shall see the evidence tomorrow that that process brought its just reward in modest but real improvements in that legislation. What is more, it means that we were able to draw out, by the process of debate, implications which it is important that the people of Northern Ireland, who will have to be bound by it and apply it, should understand. So there is a second category of substantive legislation, which, albeit applying only to Northern Ireland, should be made by Bill.
I hope the Minister will not think me churlish if I say that this Order was itself a case in point. His defence perhaps lies in my transition to the third and remaining category. That is where law which is virtually the same is to apply to Northern Ireland as to other parts of the United Kingdom—part of the process, to quote his words, of bringing the law in Northern Ireland into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. I think there was a general sentiment from both sides to agree with him when he said it was in the public interest that there should be no unnecessary divergence between the law in Northern Ireland and the law in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Where that is to be so, and it applies to a considerable part of the Order before the House, the proper way to legislate is by legislating for the United Kingdom with whatever necessary application clauses there may be to take account of the differences of Northern Ireland statutes.
Incidentally, while referring to the existence of the Northern Ireland statute book—here I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim. North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—let us not forget that the Northern Ireland statute book, on which the Stormont Parliament was working for 50 years, was basically the statute book of the United Kingdom. Indeed, if hon. Members look at some of the footnote references to statutes in this Order, they will find that probably more of those footnote references are to United Kingdom than to Northern Ireland statutes. So let us not get too obsessed with the idea that there is a kind of rounded complete Northern Ireland statute book which in no circumstances must we violate by passing United Kingdom legislation which applies to Northern Ireland.
I believe that the Government will find as time goes on that there is a point where we cannot job backwards. Admittedly where legislation has already taken place in Great Britain form, we have no choice but to take a separate measure applying it to Northern Ireland. But for the future—I am sure that in this the Government are looking to the future—I believe that they will find that to general advantage,

including a net saving of the time of the House, they can use United Kingdom legislation to a wide extent as a vehicle for the extension and improvement of the law which applies to Northern Ireland.
I will trouble the House with only one example—it is a striking example—which is produced by this Order-in-Council. Hon. Members who happened to read as far as Article 67 found themselves at once in familiar territory:
The Department may by order direct that any charter for the time being in force in Great Britain…containing practical guidance for employers, trade unions and editors and other journalists.
Where had we heard that before? Then we remembered the great debates, the repeated debates month after month, which almost absorbed the attention of public opinion and of correspondence in the Press, and which were the subject of heated debate in this House.
Now we find that in this Order-in-Council we are going to ditto that in Northern Ireland. How much more sensible it would have been from our point of view and for everyone else if Northern Ireland Members could have participated in those debates not as semi-outsiders, privileged father to vote than to contribute, but with the knowledge on the part of all concerned—ourselves and the public and the media in Northern Ireland—that those debates were directly going to affect the Press and trade unions in Northern Ireland. I repeat that there is no substitute, where the law is to be the same, for legislating at one and the same time in one and the same vehicle.
I am fortified in this when I go on a little further to Article 75. There we find an elaborate structure created whereby a person—at the moment non-existent because we are living in an interim age —called "The Head of the Department" can take all kinds of complicated steps to produce uniformity between the two parts of the United Kingdom so that, as far as possible, the legislation shall form a single whole—a single system. We want a single system. A single system is what the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North have equally been asking for.
Therefore, I lay emphasis upon this third important category which I have


distinguished—namely, that the manner in which we shall legislate for Northern Ireland shall be on the same lines as for the rest of the United Kingdom.
I leave the subject with the offer of these further reflections as a contribution to the work which is being carried out by the Government in moving towards a less unsatisfactory system during the period of direct rule in legislating for all these categories for Northern Ireland.
Much as we appreciate the opportunity of being consulted—and certainly of being consulted on proposals when they are in draft—it must be said that consultation is no substitute for parliamentary debate when a matter is put forward on the responsibility of the Government. Of course, there is scope for prior consultation; but we know that often some of the most important corrections and amendments to legislation are made when the Government have made up their mind in the form of a Bill and then submit that Bill to the scrutiny of the House.
I am sure the hon. Member for Belfast, West did not want to be taken seriously when he suggested that if hon. Members were to make unwise suggestions and deliver themselves of unwise speeches it would be better that they should be deprived of the opportunity of doing so altogether. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is neither so illiberal nor so defective a parliamentarian as to have meant that. He was merely using a rather defective peg to bring into the debate a point which, from the beginning, he was determined—however briefly, and subject to censure by the Chair—to ventilate.

11.52 p.m.

Mr. Moyle: We have had two satisfactory debates under this Order, one on the procedure for legislating during a period of direct rule under the Northern Ireland Act 1974, and the other on the main body of the Order. I regard the two debates as the best that have taken place during the time I have been involved in these matters.
In talking of the procedures of legislating in a period of direct rule, we were all talking from our own direct experience of the problems involved. On the points raised in an industrial relations context, as one who spent 10 years in the profes-

sional administration of industrial relations before I came to this House I am unduly suspending my judgment on the matter, but I thought that I could recognise a fellow professional in the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker).
I found the interchange between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) on the future duties of the labour relations industry most valuable. A decision as to which duties will remain with the Department of Manpower Services and which will go to the Labour Relations Agency is one which I shall have to take at some time in the not-too-distant future. I found the contribution of both hon. Members, as also the contribution of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), most helpful. They have initiated a debate that will go on in Northern Ireland for somewhat longer. The fact that the issues have been posed will help to get the matter started off on the right lines.
I do not want to say a great deal in replying to the debate about the constitutional argument. I do not want to add much to what I said in my opening speech. Certainly all the comments made will be noted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who wishes to be as helpful as possible. I am sure that he will study this debate with great thoroughness in reaching any conclusions which he may announce to the House in the debate next month when we seek to renew the 1974 Act.

Mr. Neave: Will the Minister represent to his right hon. Friend that the Opposition parties should be consulted about this?

Mr. Moyle: I had that in mind as a point I would mention before leaving the subject. Whereas I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman that consultations will take place, I will certainly convey his view to my right hon. Friend, and make sure that he is very sharply aware of the desire of the Opposition parties in this respect.
I came to the conclusion that for the first time I disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West when he said that he did not feel that the contributions of Northern Ireland Members would improve the Order. As a matter of


principle, I cannot agree with that. As a convinced democrat, I am of the view that contributions by elected representatives to all sorts of issues are bound to be valid and lead to the improvement of the situation.
It is not always given to us mortals to understand how those contributions might improve the situation, but, in spite of evidence sometimes to the contrary, I have every confidence that the principle is valid, and it has been substantiated in my experience over 10 years' service here.
Similarly, I think that the hon. Member for Armagh was being slightly facetious when he wondered why we do not meet in a little caucus in our representative capacity and agree on the amendments to Statutory Rules and Orders without going through the exhausting formalities of debate. The principle is that justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done. That is why public debate is necessary. It all springs from the desire of the Government to meet, as far as possible, the various points made on the issue.
I only wish to add to what I said in opening that the devolved government which all parties at the Convention wanted for Northern Ireland, surely is not sought in its own right. It is sought because devolved government is a method by which laws and policies particularly adapted to Northern Ireland in certain situations may be applied.
We are even wo, under direct rule, in a situation of devolved government. Albeit that the machinery might not be as ideal as any of us really want it to be, we are in a devolved government situation. If we just apply blanket legislation to Northern Ireland we are in fact removing from ourselves the opportunity to adapt, where judgment allows us to do so, laws and policies to the peculiar circumstances of Northern Ireland.
I was asked a great number of questions on the industrial relations Order by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and others. I would argue that the recommendation was followed by the Government. I admit that this is a matter for judgment and for differences of view, perhaps, but the Government considered the circumstances of Northern Ireland before bringing forward the present Order.
Where the Government followed the provisions of the Trade Disputes Act and the provisions of the Employment Protection Act, they did so because they felt the provisions were peculiarly adapted to the situation in Northern Ireland. That is particularly so in the case of this Order. The measures applied were abstracted from the Trade Disputes Act and the Employment Protection Act because it was felt, particularly in the acute economic circumstances of Northern Ireland—they are more acute economically than in the rest of Britain—they would be of special protection to the working people in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member asked me about figures for stoppages in Northern Ireland and gave the 1974 figures himself. He asked me for figures for subsequent years. I have figures only for 1975 so far. Happily, those show an improvement on the 1974 figures in that the number of stoppages was down to 95 and the number of man-days lost was reduced from 268,000 to 242,000. There was a modest improvement, therefore, in the situation. Unfortunately, I do not know, obviously, what the 1976 position is.
As to the question of objection on conscientious grounds and how that will be dealt with, the protection there will be the industrial tribunals. As the hon. Gentleman knows from his perusal of the Order, unfair dismissal will be considered by the industrial tribunals, and if someone feels that he has been unfairly dismissed under closed shop provisions, he will be able to appeal to the industrial tribunal, which will build up a body of practice on these matters, and they will be able to take conscientious grounds into consideration.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether there was a right of appeal after the exercise of the arbitration and conciliation functions of the Department which might be transferred to the Labour Relations Agency. In asking that question he misunderstands the function of arbitration and conciliation. There is a right of arbitration and conciliation within a particular industry through the Government's machinery. When that has been done, through either the Government's conciliation service or the Labour Relations Agency, that is the end of it. There cannot be an appeal


from that type of arbitration or conciliation to yet another body.
We do not know in detail what the labour relations code will be. That is a matter for the Labour Relations Agency when it is established.
No independent study has been made of the cost of applying these extra measures to Northern Ireland industry. But the CBI has said that if the Government went ahead and applied those provisions it would lead to increased costs for industry. We must accept that broad judgment: it will lead to increased costs. I cannot indicate the extent of the costs but they will be of an order that can be met.
I was also asked about consultations on forthcoming Orders. One round of consultations on subsequent industrial relations Orders has taken place with interested parties in Northern Ireland. The Department of Manpower Services is considering the consequences of them and will be expressing its ideas to those bodies before they are published for legislation.
Maternity pay will be dealt with in the second Order. The CBI is giving detailed information in writing about the proposed provisions. The draft Order will be published as a proposal to permit further public comment before it is laid before Parliament.
The hon. Member for Armagh made a quiet dig at the Government on the subject of voluntary collective bargaining. I cannot agree that voluntary collective bargaining has gone. Certain negotiating bodies in industry have always accepted limitations on their power to negotiate. Collective bargaining between the Government on the one hand and the CBI and trades unions on the other certainly exist. Before that bargain is put into operation there will have to be voluntary public acceptance of it. Trades unions are at present voluntarily voting on whether to accept the proposal which has been put to them. Delegates from trade unions in Northern Ireland attend union conferences. When I go to my own trade union conference there are always delegates from Northern Ireland there, and they fully participate in the debates and the voting. If the proposal put forward by the Government and the TUC is accepted,

it will be as a result of voluntary, democratic debate by all representatives of the trade union movement. Therefore, there has been no suspension of voluntary collective bargaining. They would probably agree that there has been an added dimension.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the definition of "trade union official". In Article 2 he will see that the definition of "official" includes the term "representative". Therefore, I do not think that there is any great clash between the terminology used in the two different parts of the Order, although I agree that elegance would have required exactly the same terminology in both parts.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about disclosure of information. I shall certainly work to achieve agreement between the two sides of industry in Northern Ireland, but there is always the possibility that we shall not be able to achieve the unanimity of view on that issue that we had on the matters dealt with by the Review Body. In those circumstances I should have to take my own decision, but I note what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. McCusker: The report of the Review Body goes into the question of disclosure of information in great detail. Agreement is already there in principle. I hope that it can be built on, rather than duplicating the section from the Employment Protection Act.

Mr. Moyle: I agree, but it is a dynamic situation. Pieces on the chessboard of industrial relations are always moving and affect the position of all the other pieces.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West made a very valid point on the question of low pay. I am happy to be able to assure him that we are working hard to bring into operation in Northern Ireland legislation equivalent to the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act in Great Britain. It will be part of the industrial Orders that we are bringing forward. I hope that my hon. Friend will think that as a result of the lapse of time the legislation for Northern Ireland is, if anything, an improvement on that which was passed for Great Britain. There are some consolations in that regard.
I think that I have touched on most of the points raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), my colleague as Minister of State, who was responsible for arguing on behalf of the Government in the Committee stage of the Fair Employment Bill through most of the Sittings, has particularly asked me to thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the good relations between employers and employees in reference to the industrial tribunals. I do not want to go further on that subject tonight. No doubt there will be further references to that contribution later today, when we shall give prolonged consideration to that Bill.
I think that I have covered most of the points raised in this particularly valuable debate. I am grateful that there is total agreement in the House with the broad general provisions of the Order, and that it will receive the blessing of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION

12.10 a.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Frederick Mulley): I beg to move,
That this House takes note with approval of the Resolution of the Council and of the Ministers of Education meeting within the Council comprising an action programme in the field of education (Commission Document No. R/263/76) and also of the draft directive on the education of the children of migrant workers (Commission Document No. R/2085/75); and urges the Government to ensure that any instrument adopted by the Council on this subject does not impose unacceptable obligations on those responsible for the provision of education in this country.
In its transmission to the Table Office, for which I must take responsibility, there has arisen a slight error in the motion. The words "takes note" should have been repeated after the word "also", as suggested by the second of the two amendments being discussed with the motion.
I am grateful for the vigilance of my hon. Friends who tabled the amendment.
I should not wish it to be thought that I approved the draft directive on the education of children of migrant workers. I wanted to suggest that we should only take note of that.
On the first amendment, which suggests the deletion of the words "with approval", I must leave my hon. Friends to decide at the end of the debate, but I hope they will agree not to press the amendment. They will know that I have been pressing, and shall continue to pursue, the view that the competence of the Commission in educational matters should be limited. To a large extent, co-operation should be between Ministers of Education and we should not allow the Commission's competence to be extended.
If the words "with approval" were deleted, the wrong interpretation might be suggested in some quarters as a result of that amendment.
No doubt I shall have the opportunity of replying to the debate and all these points later.
These two instruments have been discussed by the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation, and it is as a result of its recommendation that we are considering them further tonight. The Education Ministers' resolution contains no proposals for legislation and imposes no mandatory obligations on member States. Nevertheless, I think it is right that it should be discussed by this House since it sets the framework for educational co-operation in the Community. Secondly, it is timely that the House should have this opportunity to comment on the proposal for a Council directive on the education of the children of migrant workers since the Council of Ministers is to consider it later this month.
The Select Committee expressed the opinion that the Education Ministers' Resolution raises questions of political importance. I agree that this is so, because the resolution accepts a degree of Community competence in the field of education. In this, it goes beyond the strict requirements of the Treaty of Rome, which contains provisions on mobility, on the mutual recognition of qualifications and on the provision of vocational training, but not on general education.
I believe that this extension of interests within the Community into the field of education is a good thing provided


it does not go too far. Few of us, I think, would deny the importance of education to our lives, and if the Community is to flourish, it must have an interest in this area of human activity. I believe I can reassure the House that the Community competence and involvement have not been taken too far and that a sound balance has been struck.
I was at pains to make clear in the Council of Ministers that I was not in favour of an extension of competence and that, because of the great difficulties involved, it was singularly inappropriate to seek harmonised educational arrangements between States.
The present resolution had its origins in one which Education Ministers adopted in June 1974 and which expressed their agreement in principle to co-operate in seven priority areas. It is worth noting that from the outset the Education Ministers rejected the idea of harmonisation—or the convergence of educational policies and systems—for its own sake. Instead, a pragmatic attitude was adopted with a general acceptance of the need to take account of the existing diversity of educational policies and systems in the Community, and of the need to pursue and promote the exchange of experience and ideas within the Nine where this could be of benefit to individual national systems of education.
It is against that background that we need to consider the Education Ministers' resolution of 19th February 1976. The resolution sets out an action programe for co-operation amongst the Nine and includes proposals for development in the following areas—namely, the education of migrants, the promotion of closer relations between education systems, documentation and statistics, cooperation in higher education, foreign language teaching and equal opportunity for access to education.
I suggest that in considering the form and the scope of the instrument a number of points need to be noted—

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I hesitate to interrupt, but it might help the House if I do so at this stage. My right hon. Friend used the word "instrument". Perhaps he will give us some guidance on that as it could reduce pro-

ceedings later. I thought the basis of what my right hon. Friend was saying was that it is not an instrument.

Mr. Mulley: The decision of the very lengthy meeting I attended of the Council of Ministers—to a large extent it was a meeting of Education Ministers within the Council rather than a Council of the Community—was that it should be a resolution. There was proposed, additionally, a draft directive. That is still under consideration. It derives from the provisions on the social side of the Community's work concerning the education of migrant workers' children. If it were agreed it would be an instrument. It is on the prospects of this draft directive that I have serious reservations; if I can continue I shall amplify the matter.
In considering the form and the scope of the instrument a number of points need to be noted. First, as a resolution it is not legally binding but expresses a common will amongst the Nine and a declaration of intent to proceed in a stated direction in pursuing the goal of educational co-operation. Secondly, the resolution was adopted by the Council and the Ministers of Education meeting within the Council, a formula which allows that some parts of the resolution's action programme will be undertaken within Community competence whilst others will be undertaken by member States acting individually or inter-governmentally. This means that parts of the programme, notably those related to internal policies and to proposals for bilateral exchanges of persons and information, leave the initiative, the tempo and decisions on the scale of expenditure with member States, though they have agreed to work within a common pattern.
Other parts of the programme, which call for joint activities such as studies and meetings for multilateral exchanges of experience and require central organisation and financing, have been labelled "Community level" activities. These activities are to be organised by the Commission in close liaison with the Education Committee. Third, this Education Committee is to be responsible to Education Ministers in their dual capacities as "the Council of Ministers" on the one hand and as a group of specialist Ministers of the Nine Community countries on the other.
Under the terms of the resolution, the Education Committee is to co-ordinate and have oversight of the implementation of the programme, and its members include representatives of the member States and of the Commission. I believe that the ways of working in common between the Commission and member States which the resolution fosters should ensure the development, in the long run, of a programme of educational co-operation that is both relevant and beneficial.
I have referred to the long run because the programme for expenditure is modest. In the current calendar year the whole of the Community education programme will not exceed 600,000 units of account—or about £300,000. Inevitably, it has been necessary to select priorities within the programme, and these have included particularly the transition from education to employment, and also such items as pilot projects on the education of migrant children and pump-priming development projects on joint programmes of study in higher education.
The transition from education to employment, with particular reference to the needs of those who do not go on to higher education, was identified by Education Ministers as a priority area, and we asked for a report by July 1976. This study fits in well with our own priorities within our national situation. It also illustrates the practical nature of the aspirations which in various forms and in various degrees influence the education policies of all the member States in the Community.
Many of the measures will, at first sight, appear to cover the same well-trodden ground as that covered by other international organisations. To a certain extent that is true. But, although it is not new, educational co-operation is an ongoing process, and the contacts between the Education Ministers of the Nine have shown that they are faced with similar problems and similar pressures.
I hope that the House will agree that the Education Ministers' resolution offers the prospect of a modest but worthwhile and realistic programme of educational co-operation in the Community, and that this instrument, made by Ministers of Education acting as such and not as a Council within the EEC, creates the right balance for a programme that will be

developed jointly by the Commission and by member States whilst ultimately remaining subject to control by member States.
One general principle which perhaps emerges from what I have said so far is the need to respect the autonomy of individual national systems of education and the differences in their structures and traditions in developing a new perspective of educational co-operation in Europe.
It is, therefore, interesting to compare how the theme of the education of the children of migrant workers is treated in the two instruments before us tonight. The resolution, while stressing the importance of the subject, recognises that proposals should in the main be left to member States to implement in accordance with their own ways and traditions and through a process of careful and gradual experimentation.
This optional principle is lost in the mandatory nature of the draft directive, which seeks to impose a rigid pattern of development without sufficient regard to differences in the circumstances and needs of individual States, of their education system or of their migrant population, and without allowing for gradual development based on experiment and for the emergence of consensus in educational opinion.
Let us consider what the draft directive says. In the form in which the Scrutiny Committee considered it, it requires member States to provide the following for those children of migrants—
who are the responsibility of any national of another member State or non-member State"'—
an educational reception system, including a crash course in the language of the host country; the inclusion of instruction in the mother tongue and culture of migrant children in the normal school curriculum; specialised training for some teachers and the employment of foreign teachers, if necessary, to provide tuition in the mother tongue.
We have consulted educational bodies on these proposals—

Mr. John Davies: The Minister referred to the instrument in the form in which the Select Committee considered it. Am I to understand that it is now in a different form?

Mr. Mulley: These matters are constantly under discussion. The meeting of the Council of Ministers at which the resolution was finally adopted began. I think, at 10 o'clock and certainly continued until 3 a.m.
A number of the items for consideration appeared for the first time when we got into the meeting room. We had no prior notice of them. Similarly, the draft directive is still under discussion at official level within the community; the main part of it is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. Until we get to the meeting of Ministers it remains open to change.
But I was going on to give some reasons why I would not favour the directive in its present form or having a directive at all on this matter. This arises to some extent from the consultations with educational bodies on these proposals and also the comment we have taken from the Select Committee. I want, therefore, to make a brief statement of the Government's grounds for opposing these proposals in their present form.
First, the adoption of a directive could, depending on its scope and content, mark a possibly unwelcome consolidation of Community competence in the field of education soon after Education Ministers had set careful limits to that competence.
Secondly, the terms of the directive would call into question the distribution of responsibilities between central Government and local government and the teaching profession for such matters as the internal organisations of schools and the curriculum. In our decentralised system of education, such changes would require legislation, and all available indications suggest that they would be difficult to justify to educational opinion in this country, and would, I suggest, be controversial.
Thirdly, the definition of a migrant for the purposes of the directive is no guide to educational need. This is partly because the directive fails to make the distinction between the transient migrant and the immigrant settler whose educational needs are different in many important respects, and in particular in relation to mother-tongue instruction. It is partly, too, because a definition of a migrant based on passport nationality is ulti-

mately of limited value in educational terms. It is likely, for example, that the needs of immigrants whose language is not English, for tuition in English, will be similar whether or not they are United Kingdom nationals within the meaning of the Treaty of Accession.
Fourthly, there is no conviction in educational circles that the directive offers the right educational prescription to the needs of migrants.
Finally, and on practical grounds, it would not be possible to implement many of the measures included in the draft directive. Immigrants in this country come from a wide range of countries with different civilisations, and this plurality and complexity of mother tongues and cultures is found even within individual schools. The statutory provision of mother-tongue instruction in schools for all these children would present intolerable burdens to local education authorities.
Moreover, the high cost of this provision—which one body estimated at £50 million—would present an additional demand on educational resources at a time of severe stringency in expenditure, and for a policy which does not deserve or command the highest priority among measures to assist the disadvantaged, including those in the ethnic minority groups.
The House will be well aware that we have recently asked local authorities to re-examine their current year's budgets to make sure that their total expenditure is kept within the agreed figure. We also reaffirmed that the 1977–78 rate support grant settlement will be based on the figures set out in the public expenditure White Paper. This is bound to be another limiting factor. I would only add that the proposal that teachers should be recruited from overseas would create grave problems at a time of teacher unemployment as well as raising questions about the status of their qualifications, their fluency in English, and their wider role in the schools.
For these reasons, we are bound to have strong reservations about the proposals made in the sweeping mandatory terms of this draft directive which do not reflect sufficiently the particular circumstances of our educational system, or the variety of situations that can be identified in


terms of the needs of migrant children, or of the teaching methods of the schools. Of course, I regard it of first importance that we should make appropriate provision for the education of migrant children, but we must do so in a flexible, sensitive and sensible manner which meets genuine educational needs in a practicable and carefully considered and developed way. We would not be opposed in principle to some form of Community instrument compatible with these aims. Meanwhile, further consideration has been given in Brussels to the draft directive by an intergovernmental group of officials.
The Government will continue to work for a solution which in form and in substance takes account of different needs and circumstances, and which respects both the diversity of individual systems of education and the different needs of individual pupils.
I am indebted to my right hon. and hon. Friends for putting down an amendment to the motion which makes it clear that the Government do not approve the draft directive proposals. I am not so keen on the other amendment, which refers to the resolution of the Council, because I would like to feel that I had the approval of the House in seeking to limit the competence of the Community on educational matters and in proceeding along the general lines which I have indicated.

12.35 a.m.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I suppose I could guess correctly that the Secretary of State, having been elevated to his high office from his previous portfolio, may have said to himself "Thank goodness for that—it will be a long time before I have to return to those dreadful EEC documents." There were many more such documents on transport than there are on education.

Mr. Mulley: I want to make it quite clear that I am glad that the hon. Gentleman, who showed an interest in transport before, which I noted, has now decided to follow me to education.

Mr. Dykes: It is good to see both sides of the House being so catholic for a change. Lo and behold, as soon as the Secretary of State changes his job he has to contend with two education documents. The House might be sympathetic to a

number of points which he made tonight on these documents, and to his expressions of misgivings, which reflect both the nature of the debate and the nature of the documents, and the underlying subjects they represent.
Aside from the fairly puzzling configuration of EEC documents—next week we have one on the separation of yeast, not to mention the Tindemans Report on Thursday, and it makes the mind boggle—we have this combination, which is peculiar save in respect of the inclusion in the directive of the massive subject referred to in the resolution. We have the difficulty here of dealing with two different kinds of document, and I pay tribute to the Scrutiny Committee for the way in which it tried to deal with the differences.
The Secretary of State is right in enhancing and pushing up some of the virtues of the resolution, which is relatively innocuous, and then launching into a strong attack on the directive. His misgivings are shared on this side of the House—at least on the Front Bench, and they probably will be echoed from all sides later in this debate. But that does not mean that it would not be right for the Community to try to make progress in this complicated matter in due course. This is probably the first time that the House has had an EEC debate of this kind on a matter which is not within the strict competence of the Treaty of Rome. But, as a result of Articles 48 and 49 and the embracing significance of Article 235, Community institutions and the Council feel obliged now to deal with this matter of education. Even the most enthusiastic supporters of the Community can legitimately say that care is needed when competence is extended into matters which are beyond the immediate purview of Community instruments on legislation.
That is certainly so in terms of the resolution. It is really, however, an expression of intent, a loose expression of policy by the Education Council or by Education Ministers. It is therefore difficult to quarrel with the main heads of the resolution. Questions are bound to arise over it, however. Perhaps I may put one or two of them in the hope that the Secretary of State will deal with them later. I was not sure, for example, that the Secretary of State was able to


explain to the satisfaction of the House how he sees the status of the resolution. It is possible that the Education Council, or a majority of its members, will decide in the near future to take these matters somewhat further, perhaps by way of an additional resolution. I cannot recall a resolution couched in these terms.
Secondly, there is an inevitable problem with action programmes. They are often virtuous as expressions of faith, but, while their vagueness is useful to some, it has meant that in the past the programmes have not produced much action and they have tended to get bogged down.
May we have more information on the education committee which is to be set up? The Commission will be represented on it, but there would be a strong tendency for the Commission to be a powerful voice in the Committee, perhaps at the expense of the more pragmatic political views taken by the Ministers or their representatives.
The document is not satisfactory on higher education and we should like more information about the Government's views on suggestions under that head. Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about progress, because the original target date of 1st July is still regarded as valid by the other member States?
There is then the much more difficult problem of the draft directive. I must at the outset welcome the expressions of the right hon. Gentleman's misgivings. Unusually and in contrast to many previous draft directives on a whole range of different subjects where the United Kingdom has been ahead of the highest standards in the directives, the targets in the draft directive are way ahead of anything that can be regarded as achievable in practical terms for this country or any other.
I think I am right in saying that the misgivings the Secretary of State has expressed have been echoed by other ministerial spokesmen in other member States. This has varied. For example, in Holland there is a tradition of absorption of migrants, although it is a smaller territory. The problems can be described as being less in intensity but there is more enthusiasm to overcome the problems set by these elaborate procedures, to try to cater

for migrant children in a comprehensive sense.
I hope that the Government will not be complacent about this, not only in saying that they cannot accept this directive, as it now is, but when going back to the Education Council. It may be a matter for the European Council, so important is it. It deals with subsidiary matters other than the commanding heights of the Community's affairs. I hope that the Government will put their foot down and demand an alternative course of action containing only parts of this directive.
I want to refer to the contrast between the traditions, history and atmospheres of the highly centralised education systems of other countries, particularly France and Germany—not now so much but in the old days—and those of this country, where the system is highly decentralised in spite of the attempts of this Government to gather these things unto themselves. In this country education is also decentralised in matters of curriculum and syllabus and in the freedom of local education authorities to make decisions on education and on patterns of education. This is important, because one has the uneasy impression that the Commission directive reflects Continental habits and systems far more. The preparatory work for the directive was started before we became members of the Community, and one would be keen and anxious to know what the Secretary of State has done to discuss this with his Irish and Danish colleagues to discover their reaction. Perhaps he could say something about this.
The idea is that the draft directive should apply equally to member and nonmember States and children from them, but that would be enormously difficult to reconcile with anything which educationists are saying about precisely differential treatment for children coming from such different territories. We need not go even beyond Europe to consider this. There is the classic difference of the French worker coming here and bringing his child, but that absorption would be potentially easier than that of a Portuguese worker coming, in due course, or going to Germany, as many did in the last period of economic expansion. The needs of the Portuguese child would have to be met.
As the Secretary of State said, there is a need for teachers to integrate and to deal with foreign teachers' qualifications. This is a minefield, and we must be glad that the Government are taking a strong line.
It is not true to assume that the keen adherents to Europe see no need for the British Government to take a strong line against or in favour of some proposal when there is a need. Perhaps this is the first lime the Government have sounded so tough.
On behalf of the Opposition, I sum up by welcoming the Secretary of State's attitude, subject to hearing from him and subject to the rest of this debate. I think there are individual points about which the Secretary of State could go into more detail. I expect to hear from other hon. Members other points which may include more constitutional questions.
The motion before the House is in a new form, and the way that it is couched confuses the House. We see the words "takes note with approval". The Secretary of State explained that in its application to the directive, and that is fair enough. The second part reads:
and urges the Government to ensure that any instrument adopted by the Council on this subject does not impose unacceptable obligations on those responsible for the provision of education in this country.
That is also fair enough if the Secretary of State means to adhere to it when the time comes.
I do not think that the Secretary of State gave the game away, as may be suggested later in the debate, when he talked about the change in the draft document in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), because that is how the Community works. There is some virtue in seeing a succession of draft documents which change and are adjusted. There is nothing sinister about that. It enables the Council of Ministers or any other Council to make up its mind finally and to reach a definitive decision on a legislative document. It may be undesirable for the Scrutiny Committee of this House to consider a text which subsequently is adjusted, but that is not the main central point—

Mr. John Davies: My anxiety, and that of the House, is that there should not be

an alternative and changed document when we are discussing in the Scrutiny Committee or on the Floor of the House a document which, to the best of our knowledge, is the most recent one. That is the point.

Mr. Malley: We have given the House the information that we have. But, because the intergovernmental committee is still working, it cannot be the final text. In any event, it would make nonsense of the meeting of Ministers if it was not possible for us, in that meeting, to seek to get into the document the view of this House. If it were not open to amendment, there would be no point in having a meeting.

Mr. Dykes: I shall refrain from replying to those points, because I know that our time is limited. I thought that I was saying the same as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford.
There is nothing sinister in the progressive elaboration of documents of this kind within the Councils. It is an excellent way of legislating, provided that there is full publicity, which there is not yet, although we hope that it will come as soon as possible. But, in these arguments so far, the Secretary of State has represented the country's interests in an agreeable and satisfactory way, and we on this side of the House endorse what he said.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am greatly embarrassed. There are at least three senior Privy Councillors who wish to take part in the debate, as well as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is about to move his amendments. There are 53 minutes left for debate. I hope that that fact will be borne in mind.

12.48 a.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall endeavour to bear in mind what you said.
I beg to move to leave out "with approval".
My second amendment is, after "also", to insert "takes note".
The difficulty that we are in is highlighted, Mr. Speaker, by what you have just said, and I reiterate yet again that I do not consider it right that the Mother of Parliaments should have to discuss a


very important matter of this kind in an hour and a half. We are witnessing a twin constitutional disgrace in debating the matter at this hour of the day and, what is more, in having to debate it under a time limit imposed by contested Standing Orders upon which this House divided on 3rd November.
First, I must thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his kind remarks at the beginning of the debate. However, the fact that he has had to make them is very serious. He said that the Government did not find the second document on migrant children acceptable, yet the motion asks the House to note it "with approval".
We all understand that there are clerical errors, mistakes, and so on. But I do not think that this motion has been on the Order Paper for more than a day. Quite apart from what I said about the time limit, in future it is beholden on the Government to see that a motion of this kind appears among the Remaining Orders of the Day in sufficient time for everyone to see that it may be defective. If this happy chance had not occurred, either the Government would not have moved the matter or they would automatically have talked it out. I do not regard that as satisfactory when we deal with matters of directives which are not matters of legislation. They are directives as to what this legislation shall put through.

Mr. Mulley: I said quite clearly that it was an error that we did not make it absolutely clear in the text that we did not wish to give approval to the second part of the document. My hon. Friend would at least acknowledge that had he not been so vigilant I would have had to ask for Mr. Speaker's indulgence to table a manuscript amendment or something of that kind. I did not have to do that because my hon. Friend had been so vigilant in the matter.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I appreciate what he says but, in this context, I think it emphasises—I hope he will make this point to his right hon. Friends in the Government—that those of us who are accused of being somewhat cynical, and somewhat enthusiastic, on this issue have every reason to

be so. The proceedings tonight underline that point.
I hasten to the document. Is it a resolution of the Council of Ministers or is it the Council of Ministers of Education within the Council? It is a very strange affair indeed. My right hon. Friend talked about a formula, but the words in the document are convoluted. I have the Official Journal of the European Communities C38/1 where all this wording is printed, which states that there shall not only be this curious thing the "Council of the European Communities" and the "Ministers of Education meeting within the Council", whatever that means. It adds:
An Education Committee shall be set up consisting of representatives of the Member States"—
it does not say "Ministers"—
and of the Commission.
It could conceivably be an education committee of civil servants of the United Kingdom and civil servants of the Commission and the other member States.
I take my right hon. Friend's point that he wants to get education out of the hands of the EEC, or words to that effect, but the very document he commends to us does nothing of the sort. Indeed, dangerously, it may do the very opposite. In respect of his plea to us perhaps to consider it again and that "with approval" should be left in, I am afraid I cannot agree with him. The document virtually does not do what he claims. I know he has done his best, and I am sure the House is glad he tried to get some other formula. Whether it is legal or not I do not know, but we cannot say we view this with approval. Still less, and this is more important, to note "with approval" is not noting "with approval" the stratagem he has successfully tried to some extent. But it applies to the contents. It notes with approval the contents of the resolution, which is the action programme to which I now turn.
Paragraph (iv) states:
Better facilities for the education and training of nationals and the children of nationals of other Member States of the Communities and of non-member countries.
I think that was the children of migrants directive which my right hon. Friend referred to in the second part of his remarks. Yet he said this resolution


is not binding. He is really commending to us a document which he said is not binding but, clearly, the first item in the action programme is the directive which is. I hope the Minister will clear that up. I do not think the Scrutiny Committee noticed that, because it said no mandatory obligations are imposed on member States.
I shall not go into the action programme in detail, but paragraph 5 states:
In order to give a European dimension to the experience of teachers and pupils in primary and secondary schools in the Community, Member States will promote and organise".
It goes on for a whole series of things, including
advisory services necessary to promote the mobility and interchange of pupils".
There is then a wide phrase—I know that you, Mr. Speaker, will appreciate what may be subsumed within the title—
educational activities with a European content.
I do not think that means European regional geography, including Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, Czechoslovakia, and so on. I should think that in a European Communities Official Journal it means Community content. We are straight into the content of education. We are straight into curriculum—something that even this House dare not touch in relation to schools, bar the question of religious education. That is in the resolution.
When we come to the directive it is even more apparent. I do not take my right hon. Friends view of this resolution of a council within a council or a committee that is not a committee, or whatever it is. I hope that my right hon. Friend will catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker, to talk about that.
I will not talk about vires. I do not think that a case has been made out for vires in this respect under either the social provisions in Title 3, Chapter 1, Articles 117–122 or Article 48, referred to by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), which has to do with workers, not education. Article 235 is to fulfil the objectives of the Treaty. There is no objective in the Treaty about education as far as I know. Even if Article 235 is invoked, it must be the unanimous view of the Council after obtaining the opinion of the Assembly,

and that has not been done. I suggest that we are being very irregular. If we were in a court of law in this country arguing about statutes, my right hon. Friend would be in trouble straightaway. Therefore, we are on dangerous ground.

Mr. Dykes: Was the hon. Gentleman saying that the view of the Assembly had not been received on the draft directive?

Mr. Spearing: I am not sure. If Article 235 is used—I am not sure whether it has been—the opinion of the Assembly must be received.

Mr. Dykes: It has been received.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman says that it has been received, but it has not been referred to in the debate. Therefore, it is even more reprehensible. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a lot to do, but he should have told us that it was under Article 235. I hope that my right hon. Friend will follow that up later.
I turn to the draft directive. That is an even more important document, if possible, than the resolution, or whatever it is that we have been talking about. The House has been poorly served there, because the Scrutiny Committee cannot tell us much about it. It has told us a bit about it in its Seventh Report of this Session, but it is just an outline. Our Scrutiny Committee cannot go into the merits. It is curious that greater powers reside with their Lordships than with this House. Their Scrutiny Committee can not only say whether it is of importance but give an opinion. Indeed, it has done so. I have the 33rd Report on the European Communities of their Lordships' House. This document is dealt with in a comprehensive fashion in 15 pages. That matter has not been referred to so far in this debate, and I dare say it might not have been referred to at all had I not raised it.
Not only have their Lordships taken evidence on this matter from the educational organisations, namely from the Joint Four, as they are called—but they also heard evidence from Lord Alexander, whose name is well-known and respected, although I must confess that I have not always agreed with the noble Lord in other respects.
This matter was debated in the other place yesterday. It is a pity that wed


have not before us a copy of Hansard setting out that debate. I thought that that was part of the idea of the complementary nature of the two Chambers. Whatever our views about the nature or competence of those Chambers, let us at least use what we have got. But it has been so arranged by chance that we have not had that opportunity. Fortunately, I knew of the debate in the other place and I listened to their Lordships airing this matter yesterday afternoon.
Let me quote from the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the European Communities, paragraph 12:
With regard to the proposed compulsory instruction in the mother tongue and culture of the country of origin in school curricula, the Committee have grave reservations.
In the final part of its recommendation, in paragraph 15, the Scrutiny Committee said:
Thus the draft Directive is not appropriate to the conditions prevailing in the United Kingdom. The Committee believe that a Directive is not the best vehicle for such proposals as are contained in this document and that they should instead be promulgated in the form of a Recommendation which Member States may voluntarily pursue and report upon from time to time.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not say that this was what the Government propose to do. Perhaps he will say when he replies.

Mr. Mulley: I thought I had made clear that I was not in favour of the directive. If my hon. Friend persuades me, I think that I could go as far as the recommendation, but he will have to be persuasive if he wants to go that far.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I am sure that on this matter, leaving aside the question of the other House, there is no disagreement across the Floor or between my right hon. Friend and myself.
The best persuasion I can use is to use the words of Lord Donaldson, who a few hours ago replied to the debate in the other place on this subject. He said—I wrote it down—"We unequivocally accept the advice given." Presumably, that was the Government's advice. Lord Donaldson persuaded me. I can only hope that that will also persuade my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That would seem to be the most appropriate way of dealing with that matter.

Mr. Mulley: The persuasion I need is to go as far as my hon. Friend in wanting the recommendation. If he wants the recommendation, I shall seek to obtain it, but my hon. Friend should not be disappointed if we do not go as far as that.

Mr. Spearing: My right hon. Friend may be right, and I would not persuade him to go as far as a recommendation in this matter. We must remember that the demands of migrant workers and immigrants are so different. I shall not persue that point now. I think my right hon. Friend has persuaded me that a recommendation is not now appropriate. The only point was that it was not binding.
I believe that the Community has within its borders about 2 million migrant children. Their requirements and needs are quite different from the needs of what are termed immigrant children in this country.
The House of Lords published some figures on this topic. Those figures show that in Germany there are 528,000 Turkish citizens, 466,000 Yugoslavs and 268,000 Greeks. There is a total of 1,779,000 migrant workers in Germany alone from outside the EEC. The problem is very different from our own.
Let me conclude by mentioning the speech made this afternoon by Lord Fulton when opening the debate in the other place. He said that what was denied to Westminister and Whitehall should not be conceded to Brussels.

1.5 a.m.

Mr. John Davies: It really is a pity, when we meet at such a late hour, that questions of substantial importance are inevitably taken in an empty House, and with very little attention paid to them elsewhere, either. Some of the issues raised in these two papers are quite important, and merit a little wider thought and consideration.
I should like first to take up a question raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on the subject of the activities of the Scrutiny Committee. I am bound to tell him that I was very doubtful whether the Scrutiny Committee was in order in considering the first document at all. The terms of reference of the Committee require it only to consider documents which emanate from the


Commission. This particular document did not emanate in the normal way from the Commission. If the hon. Member is looking for an enlargement of activity for the Committee, I personally would welcome this aspect falling under consideration.
There are one or two such matters which have arisen and which constitute certain impediments to the work of the House. The negotiation for the admission of Greece to membership of the Community is one example. We have some papers which are not appropriate to the terms of reference of the Committee. It is worth mentioning this because it has some importance. There are underlying issues here worth mentioning in addition to those brought forward by the Secretary of State and the subsequent speakers.
There is one in particular to which I must give great emphasis. The advantage of considering the first paper is that it is dealing with matters at a very early and formative stage of consideration in the Community. I personally welcome, with a great deal more warmth than has been expressed hitherto, many of the lines of thought which are implicit in this paper. The truth is that in the educational circles in which I am involved there is a crying out for some better and more effective method of devising systems of cross-frontier education and providing systems for interchange and the like of the kind which the paper specifically sets out to encourage.
It would be damaging to the reputation of the House if we gave the impression that in the United Kingdom our feeling was that we wished to push these things away, and that we do not want any interference by any extraneous body. This is the kind of thing which gives us the reputation of being a great deal more chauvinistic in outlook than we really are.
I believe that many of the issues raised here—especially on constitutional questions—are the very ones for which many educational authorities today are crying out. I applaud the first paper and agree with the Secretary of State's recommendation that we should take note of it with approval. I hasten to add that I am perfectly satisfied with his discarding of the directive. However, from both these

considerations I must register serious censure on our Government's handling of matters in the Community.
The truth is that consistently—it happens more regularly in agriculture than in education—we see issues emerging from the Commission which quite patently have not had the weight of advice, pressure and the representation of the British purpose and interest that they should have had. They still, after three and a half years of membership, look like six countries working out a formula which suits them. That is a criticism of government in action in the Community. It is absolutely unnecessary that it should be so. If the proper pressures were exercised in the proper way, many of these things would be properly drawn up to take account of what, to any sensible man, are obviously differences of condition between this country and some of the countries of Continental Europe. The Government cannot escape their responsibility.
Figures are always difficult to reconcile with one another because of the dates of censuses. But in Germany there are about 2 million so-called migrant workers, of whom about 430,000 come from within the Community, about 1,400,000 from the rest of Europe and North Africa and about 250,000 from elsewhere. In France there are 1,900,000 migrant workers, of whom 300,000 come from EEC countries, almost 1,500,000 from the rest of Europe and North Africa and 145,000 from elsewhere. In this country there are nearly 1,700,000 migrant workers, of whom 630,000 come from the EEC—including about 450,000 from the Republic of Ireland—107,000 from Europe and Africa and nearly 1 million from other areas.
Those figures reveal a totally different situation for this country with all its consequences for family conditions, the number of children involved and the prospects of staying or returning which makes nonsense of the directive. The Government was responsible for seeing that directives of this kind, which obviously disregard our situation and which should demand special consideration, are not put to the House in this form.
We have little ability to intervene. The House is totally dependent upon Commission documents. That is why I commend the first piece of paper to the House. Our ability to intervene is limited to the


period after the Commission has given birth to a document. But the Government are not in that position. They have great powers of representation at the time of formulation of policy within the Commission through committees which can bring pressures to bear to ensure that the special circumstances of each country are clearly understood. The House does not have that ability. The totally unsatisfactory nature of the directive cannot be shuffled off on to the Community. The Government have a real responsibility which they have not met.

1.14 a.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, I think that you showed great wisdom in selecting both amendments, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) showed great acumen in detecting the error in the Government's first motion.
I agree with the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) that it is no doubt highly desirable that there should be sensible international agreements about the proper treatment of migrant workers, but that is not the issue here. If there were a suggestion that there should be voluntary agreements of that kind, with those objectives, I do not think that anybody would disapprove. But what we are being asked to approve is far-reaching intervention in educational policies by the EEC, including the Commission.
I have every confidence in the objectives of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I entirely approved of his speech today, but that is not what he is asking us to approve. He is asking us to approve the resolution, which contains what it calls "an action programme". There is no time to outline what that programme is. I quote only one sentence:
The following measures will be implemented as Community level:
—exchange of information and experience concerning the organization of suitable types of teaching, taking the form of a limited number of pilot schemes to enable these types of teaching to be compared and assessed, and co-operation in the training of teachers required to assume responsibility in this field".
It is not exactly clear to me what all that means, but it is not confined to the vocational training of migrant workers.
The question raised here is whether under the Treaty of Rome the EEC has any competence to intervene in education matters of this kind. In what article of the Treaty of Rome is there any authority for this far-reaching intervention in education? There are references to social welfare, but education is not just a branch of social welfare. There are references to vocational training, but I do not think that my right hon. Friend would suggest that what is called in his memorandum "culture tuition" is just a branch of vocational training.
It seems to me—and I speak as a layman, not a lawyer—that the whole of these proposals are ultra vires of the treaty of Rome. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) mentioned Article 235, which has some portmanteau words, all of which are, however, governed by the purposes of the Treaty. If it is to be suggested that under Article 235 the EEC can launch out from being an economic community and from all the previous articles of the Treaty and take education policy within its sphere, I do not know why it should stop at education. It could proceed to religion, literature, pornography and sport, for all I know. We might one day have a directive for harmonising the offside rule, or, if we are to have mutton and lamb in the common agricultural policy, perhaps the LBW rule as well.

Mr. Mulley: The offside rule has been harmonised throughout Europe already.

Mr. Jay: I am delighted that it should be done voluntarily by the football organisations and not through a directive by the EEC. That is the issue.
I should not like to attribute views to you, Mr. Speaker, but I have a feeling that in your previous incarnation you, like the noble Lords we have heard about today, would have had some anxieties about a proposal to intervene in methods of teaching and curricula, a proposal that intervention which has never been permitted to this Parliament or the central Government of this country should suddenly, with the plea of easing the difficulties of migrant workers, be handed over to authorities in Brussels with no apparent validity under the Treaty of Rome.
My right hon. Friend said that perhaps on a strict interpretation of the Treaty


this might be ultra vires. When we are discussing increases in food taxes and the imposition of levies which everybody, including the Government, regards as highly undesirable from the point of view of social and economic policy, we are told that we must do it because it is a strict interpretation of the Treaty of Rome. Now we are apparently being told that if the Treaty is contrary to our interests, it is legitimate that it should not be strictly interpreted.
I have the gravest doubts about the resolution and the directive. I do not approve of either, and I do not see why the House should be asked to approve them.

1.20 a.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has drawn attention, not for the first time, to the constriction of time under which these debates take place.
Just before this debate, the House dealt with a Northern Ireland Order. In the past, those Orders have almost invariably been debated for one and a half hours. At this sitting, by an innovation, the rule was suspended and it was discovered that although the House spent just over two hours, instead of one and a half hours, on the Order, the whole atmosphere of the debate was altered and everyone, including hon. Members on the Government Front Bench, agreed that the debate was far more satisfactory than any of its kind in the past.
I hope that the Government's business managers will learn a lesson from that debate. They do not necessarily, by constriction of time, achieve any valuable results. If there were no such constriction, a little extra time might be used, but a great deal better use would be made of it.
The two instruments—if they are instruments—before the House illustrate what a greedy, incompatible and dangerous animal the EEC is.
Take the resolution. I quote, almost at random, from paragraph 13. It says:
While respecting the independence of higher education institutions, the following action will be undertaken at Community level".
The words:
action will be undertaken at Community level

are incompatible with "the independence of higher education institutions", for reasons perhaps less obvious than appear on the face of that sentence.
For the requirements of the programme in the resolution to be carried out, individual Governments of the component member States have to be mobilised and have to take action. The Minister has illustrated how he thinks many of the parts of the programme would be implemented by Governments of member States. The effect of the resolution and the thinking behind it is to substitute for academic and educational freedom, which we regard virtually as a birthright, a duty and, therefore, a right of the State to intervene. So the arrogation to the EEC of competence in these most unexpected spheres has the effect not only of giving the Community power but of substituting State power for internal freedom in member States.
After listening to the Minister, I cannot imagine how the House can be expected to pass a motion which "takes note with approval" of the resolution of the Council particularly as that resolution embodies the principle of the very Directive which the Minister tore to pieces with unsparing talons.
The directive refers to the education of migrant workers. They are defined as the nationals of
another member State or non-member state".
I can understand that it may be regarded as being implicit in the freedom of movement, settlement and employment, which is one of the basic principles of the Community, that the education of children of migrant workers from member States might be regarded as a very proper concern of the Community. But this is not dealing with the children of nationals of member States; it is dealing with the children of nationals of member and nonmember States. Thereby it automatically carries the matter into the entirely different sphere of international relations external to the Community—of course, each nation has an interest in the manner in which the children of its own nationals are treated when they are abroad—and it carries it into educational policy in the broadest sense of the term.
This directive represents a major and totally unauthorised extension of the scope and purport of the activity of the Community. But, as has been made clear,


this excursion is in itself totally inapt. It illustrates the incompatibility of legislation that is designed for continental nations and legislation which is to be appropriate to this country.
The term "national" appeared in the definition of "migrant worker" to which I have referred. Attached to the Treaty of Accession there is a declaration which explains what "national" is to mean in its application to the United Kingdom. In that declaration we find that a national is defined virtually as a United Kingdom and Commonwealth citizen who has the right of abode. I have abbreviated, but that is broadly the purport.
That is not what a "national" means in the other States of the Community. In those States a person who is not a national does not have the vote; but the New Commonwealth immigrants in this country, although not nationals within the definition of the declaration attached to the Treaty of Accession, have the vote almost without exception. They have the principal characteristic, the political power, of being a member of a State; yet they are not nationals for the purposes of the Community, nor are they nationals for the purposes of the definition of a migrant. Consequently, we have the nonsense that a document is produced which in its application to the United Kingdom will refer to large numbers of children who are totally different in the circumstances in which they find themselves in the host country from the children of the Gastarbeiter or migrant workers on the Continent.
The logic is entirely different. The logic in approaching the children of migrant workers in the continental sense is that measures should be taken, not necessarily compulsorily, not necessarily through Community instruments, but in such a way as to maintain the cultural, linguistic and educational links of those children with their own countries, to which they will continue to belong and to which their parents in most cases expect to return and will return.
There is no comparison and no relationship between that situation and the circumstances of a population who, not primarily to take up jobs here but under all kinds of political and general economic pressure, migrated from other parts of the world to settle in this coun-

try and which there is a general desire, if it be possible, in some way to assimilate permanently into the population of this country. There is no analogy between that situation and that which prevails among migrant workers and their children on the Continent of Europe. However, we are presented with the nonsense of a directive which purports to tell us—and, incidentally, to oblige us to agree to it by 1st July—what policies we are to adopt towards children who are our responsibility in this country.
I want to know what will happen. The motion before us simply "takes note", without approval, of this intolerable and unacceptable directive. The only rider attached to it is that we urge the Government
to ensure that any instrument adopted by the Council on this subject does not impose unacceptable obligations on those responsible for the provision of education in this country.
That is part of the point, but it is only part of the point; and it is not at all satisfactory that we should part with the directive having taken note of it with that rider. We are told by the Minister that he does not expect it to be adopted—indeed, he cannot imagine that it would be adopted in its present form. In that case, let us make clear what our position is in this House. The way to make it clear is to say that we do not approve the directive.
Furthermore, as the directive in its present form or anything like it is totally unacceptable, let us be told whether we shall see in its subsequent form any reincarnation of this directive. Before there is any question of its being accepted by the Government, let us be told that it will be reconsidered de novo by the Scrutiny Committee of the House. In the form in which it is presented to the House, I do not see how it can be consistent with our acceptance of the motion unamended.

1.32 a.m.

Mr. Mulley: I have very little time before the House has to form a view on the motion before it. I have great sympathy with those who complain that we have very little time. One thing we have in common with the Community is that we deliberate at this late hour. The meeting which dealt with the resolution of the Council sat beyond this hour. It


might be a useful innovation if discussions in Community committees were restricted to one and a half hours. I am unable to give assurances about the procedure of the House. That is not my responsibility. I shall, however, pass on the valid points made by the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have spoken.
We are genuinely in a dilemma, not only in this matter but generally. If we bring matters to the House at an early stage, hon. Members complain that they do not have the final text. If we wait until the matter has been decided in the EEC beyond amendment by the House, hon. Members validly complain that it is too late for the House's view to be taken into account. We cannot possibly give the House the opportunity to influence events and at the same time give it a final text. All we can do is to get the views of the House before the meeting of the Community Ministers.

Mr. John Davies: That is not the issue. The issue is that on several occasions we have found ourselves debating a paper which had already been bypassed by a paper which had been superimposed.

Mr. Mulley: To the best of my knowledge, that is not the case today. The latest version of the resolution is exactly as it is printed. The matter is at an early stage because the resolution is an indication of intention, and in that sense it is valuable for me to have the views of the House upon it.
The question of jurisdiction arises. Community aspects are covered under Article 235. We agreed that the Community should be involved in this matter because it is beneficial to us. Higher education has been mentioned. Universities in this country benefit because the Community with its resources can encourage contacts, exchanges and joint seminars. I see no harm in that. It in no way interferes with the independence of the universities. People do not have to go to meetings if they do not want to, and they do not have to involve themselves in contacts. Before we agreed to the promotion of those contacts, we had consultations with the vice-chancellors and everyone else.
We had this unusual system of Minsters of Education meeting within the Council of Ministers because we wanted to make clear that the involvement of the Commission and the Community as such was very limited but that nevertheless there were many things that the nine Ministers of Education wanted to do working collectively but on a national basis. It was agreed that it would be convenient for them to do this within the framework of the administrative arrangements available in Brussels rather than that each should have to write to his eight colleagues. It is a beneficial system and I see no harm in it.
I know that some of my right hon. and learned Friends find it difficult to give approval to anything done in the Community, but I am seeking approval for the fact that we have insisted that there should be this distinction and that for the most part we are not prepared to put our education system within the framework of the Community. We are insisting on national member status.
In the time that remains, I cannot, unfortunately, answer all the points raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), however, asked a number of important questions in a constructive speech. I assure him that we are making beneficial progress in the exchange of students and the rest. The date July 1976 was in the narrow but important area of the l6-to-19-yearolds, and I hope that we shall reach the target.
We have the Education Committee in order to underline the fact that it is different from the Community as a Community. It is officials within the Civil Service, working under the direction of their Ministers, who attend these meetings. It would be quite impossible for me to spend two or three days a week in Brussels in dealing with these matters, so it is reasonable that the Education Committee should be attended by civil servants.
I hope that the House will accept the second amendment but not the first and will then pass the resolution as amended.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: After "also" insert "take note".—[Mr. Spearing.]

Main Question, as amended, put:—

Division No. 174.]
AYES
[1.40 a.m.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


English, Michael
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick



Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Strang, Gavin
Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. J. D. Dormand




NOES



Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch




TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Nigel Spearing and Mr. Douglas Jay

It appearing on the report of the Division that forty Members were not present, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next sitting of the House.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENT

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

Orders of the Day — MEDICINES

That the Medicines (Specified Articles and Substances) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House no 18th May, be approved.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — POULTRY HYGIENE REGULATIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

1.49 a.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for this second chance to bring an important subject before the House. This should be an important debate because there is growing opposition to the two proposals to which it relates. I refer to the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations and the banning of New York-dressed birds.
It may well be that some of us should have been better informed of the effect of the two sets of Regulations. I have a feeling that tonight the Minister in charge will say that the previous Government approved the Regulations, but I think we now know the effect of them and certainly in my area in South-West England we think they will have a serious effect on

The House divided:Ayes 6, Noes 1.

many small producers—and indeed will put them out of business. I believe that in the Community as a whole people are also having second thoughts about this proposal. No only producers but consumers will be affected by the curtailment of choice.

This is a serious position, and the trade feels exactly the same about it. It is reluctant to accept these proposals. In the South-West we have made a sticker for certain cars. I should be out of order to show it, but I believe that I may make use of copious notes. I quote it:
Keep your hands off my bird".

The South-West has taken this matter very seriously indeed and wants to see that public opinion is roused so that, we hope, the Government will change their views.

I believe that the small producer stands to lose his livelihood under the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations for two causes. There is the economic cause. Under this legislation, except for hand-cut birds for farm-gate sale the processor must conform to structural standards by August 1977 at the latest, and the costs of doing so are likely to be substantial. Many processors will not be able to afford the structural alterations necessary to bring them up to the correct standard. A figure of £30 million has been mentioned as the cost to the industry of bringing all slaughterhouses up to these new standards. Is that really necessary?

The number of people who have been taken ill is very low. Many people feel that there is no danger from the way we slaughter our poultry at present. On a practical point, let us consider the £30 million cost. How many hospitals, schools or other important things could be provided with that money?

The second cause of loss to producers is the operation of the law, because under


the new regulation it appears that after 1981 these sales, other than at the farm gate, will be banned. That could reduce the income of many small producers and put them out of business. The people who cater for this trade can do so only in this way and could certainly not compete with the big producers.

I should like to put a further question to the Minister. What will happen to spent birds from egg-producing units? It will be difficult to get these birds slaughtered after they have finished laying. This is an enormous number of birds. Millions of spent birds are dealt with each year. If they are subject to these Regulations and instructions, we shall find that it will not be worth while to collect and process them. Most of them go into chicken paste and things like that. Poultry farmers will have to gas them and perhaps to dig a great pit and bury them. It will not be worth while to collect and process them for food.

Let me quote from a letter addressed to me by the director of the British Poultry Federation, Mr. Neville Wallace, who writes:
It is of course difficult to say that every single producer-processor should be guaranteed continued livelihood—he may be inefficient and not worth protecting. However, the general arguments we are deploying are, first, that our own food and hygiene regulations cover domestic trade perfectly adequately, and, secondly, that there seems no justification for harmonisation with European standards to take away the livelihood of those producing only for domestic trade.

He is right. It will be a sad day if so many producers in this country, especially in my own area, go out of business.

The NFU, too, has been very active in trying to stop these proposals. In my area, one of the vice-chairmen of the Poultry Committee, Mr. Michael Turner, has given me much information of great use. Perhaps I might pass on to the House some of the facts that he has given me.

He estimates that the latest running costs of veterinary inspection amounts to £10 million, in addition to a cost of between £30 million and £40 million to set up slaughterhouses to the required standard. He also says that New York-dressed birds will keep fresh for between 10 and 14 days and improve in flavour—

many of us will agree with that—while eviscerated birds will keep for only three days or so. Hence, there is a double advantage in being allowed to continue as we are at present.

Then there is the important point that consumers should have a choice—and why not? One has seen the reactions from women's institutes and various other people all over the country who have written in, upset at what is happening. In the South-West alone, I understand that 40 per cent. of the birds produced are sold as New York-dressed. It is quite obvious that people want this type of bird. It is true that there is a much bigger market for frozen birds, and one knows the advantages of them for the supermarkets and for storage. But there is also a growing demand for fresh poultry New York-dressed, and I do not see why it should be denied to our consumers.

I wonder whether the consumers realise the extra cost per bird. It is 1p per lb for veterinary inspection and 2p per lb for buildings and structures. On a 4-lb bird, that amounts to an extra 12p. I believe that that is a needless increase in the cost of living.

I turn now to the Food Law Action Group. I do not know much about it, but it seems to have its facts right. It says in a letter to me:
Quite simply, a vet dominated Ministry of Agriculture is using Common Market Directives as an excuse to build a vast new food hygiene and inspection empire, staffed and controlled by veterinarians. The Directives themselves probably exceed their power allowed by the Treaty of Rome, but no official attempt is being made to counter them.

It goes on to say that it believes that the Regulations, in turn, may exceed the requirements of the directives.

I ask the Minister whether these Regulations exceed the power allowed by the Treaty of Rome and whether those introduced by the Ministry exceed the requirements of the directives. We ought to have an answer. If we cannot have an answer tonight, perhaps I might have an answer by letter.

I believe that strong views are held by the Environmental Health Officers Association, which states:
The Poultry Meat Inspectors which the Regulations will call for just do not exist and even if they can be recruited they cannot be trained in time in sufficient numbers.

The association adds:
Within the plant the Environment Health Officer, with a century of experience behind him, can be relied upon to ensure that good standards of hygiene are maintained. The absence of any E.E.C. counterpart is surely no reason for changing the U.K. system of food hygiene control.

We would like to know from the Minister why these people cannot be used instead of the expensive way of using veterinary officers, even if it is for supervision.

A further point which I would bring to the Minister's attention is the amount of water which will be used if these Regulations come into force. My own neighbour, who runs a fairly large slaughterhouse, tells me that under these Regulations 2½ gallons of water per chicken will be used. That is six times the amount of water now being used. To us in the South-West, that is an important point as we already have a water shortage and there has been no evidence of illness or death through the present system. If there had been such evidence, of course that would be an entirely different matter.

I now turn to the problem of carrying out the terms of these directives. We need to have fair play in this as well. There are strong rumours in the trade that the French Government are considering giving an exemption of up to 16,000 birds per week. That would be of enormous advantage to producers if it was allowed here. I shall be glad to have an answer from the Minister as to whether there is any truth in this rumour. Of course, it is an entirely different matter if one is producing these chickens for the export market, but tonight I am discussing and thinking about the effect on the home market.

The NFU, in its opinion column in the British Farmer, makes its objection quite clear. It says:
Obsession with pettifogging harmonisation in minor unimportant areas simply adds to criticism of the Commission, and makes our membership of the EEC increasingly unpopular here. Let them concentrate on rules which help to realise the cheap, and praiseworthy aims of the Treaty of Rome.

With that I agree. I am wholeheartedly in favour of harmonisation going on within the Community, but this sort of harmonisation does no good whatsoever and discredits the whole business.

The Minister must realise that it will be extremely difficult to get this legislation through the House of Commons when it is finally discussed here. I hope that the Government will seriously think again before proceeding with it. The Minister of Agriculture should say "No" to Brussels. He should tell the Commission that we have thought better in the light of experience and discussions. I believe there would be considerable sympathy within the Community to look at this matter again. Perhaps we could have a further derogation to continue with our own methods.

I am in favour of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), the Shadow Minister of Agriculture, has said. He said that we were opposed to the implementation of these EEC directives as now drafted and that we required to renegotiate for an optional directive. That is important. That is what I favour and that is where I stand. I should like to hear from the Minister that we will make a change, that he will take this matter seriously and that the consumers' and producers' views will be taken into account. I repeat: keep your hands off my birds.

2.6 a.m.

Mr. John Davies: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) for allowing me to make a brief intervention in this Adjournment debate.
I speak in support of what my hon. Friend said. I recall to you, Mr. Speaker, that since our accession the mind of the Community has been developing in these areas.
The original purpose of the harmonisation arrangements was to try to dispel areas of distortion in competition so that the Community as a whole could rely on a free, but fairly competitive, source of products and services on the one side and, on the other side, arrangements whereby the health and welfare of its citizens could be protected by harmonisation rules in certain areas—for example, pollution—against depredation caused by industrial and other processes.
In its origin the Community moved very much in the direction of harmonisation arrangements which were universally applicable. But since our accession, and


under the auspices of the Danish Commissioner Finn Olav Gundelach, there has been the development of the optional directive in the industrial sphere. That means that anybody producing any product or giving any service to the standards set out in the directive can be assured of an open market in all parts of the Community whilst not preventing individual countries from pursuing their own arrangements in their own way if it suits them. That has been a substantial development in the industrial sphere during our membership, but it has not emerged greatly within the agricultural section.
I suggest that there is no reason why such an arrangement should not be negotiated. It is a new arrangement within the framework of the Community. There seems no reason why the doubts about the applicability of this instrument should not be dealt with by means of the optional directive to which I have referred.

2.8 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): I welcome this opportunity to debate the subject of poultry meat hygiene. The proposed Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations which we hope soon to lay before the House have already been the subject of widespread comment—some of it highly inaccurate—and it will serve a useful purpose if tonight we can establish the main facts.
I do not propose to dwell on the history of the two EEC directives on which our Regulations are to be based. Suffice it to say that Directive 71/118, which lays down a comprehensive system for the hygienic production of poultry meat in slaughterhouses, was adopted when we joined the Community and that Directive 75/431, which was intended primarily to extend the original directive to poultry cutting up premises and cold stores, also included a number of changes that will help our poultry industry to adapt to the new regime. In particular, we gained more time: whereas the original directive would have applied to the domestic trade of member States from February 1976, we now have until August 1977 to meet the structural requirements, until August 1979 to provide a full inspection service,

and until August 1981 to phase out the trade in uneviscerated poultry except at the farm gate. These changes were welcomed by the poultry industry, and I do not want to waste the time of the House in arguing whether the Conservative Government who accepted the original directive would have achieved any different result if they had been in power at the time the amending directive was agreed.
In this country we have no specific regulations for the hygienic production and inspection of poultry meat, though we have long applied such requirements to other types of meat. It was time we remedied this omission. Poultry is now a major item in the diet, and the British consumer is entitled to expect the same high standard of protection that consumers in several other countries have enjoyed, some of them for years past—for example, the United States, Canada, Sweden, Denmark and Holland. The proposed Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations will do no more than set that standard.
In stating that our hygiene requirements are falling behind the standards set by other countries, I imply no criticism of those who are currently responsible for enforcement of the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations. Within the powers available to them and the many other calls on their time, they have served us well. Nor do I imply criticism of those poultry meat producers who maintain high standards through their own quality control systems. But not all are in this category, and we believe in any case that there is a public duty here of the type that we have long accepted for red meat.
The purpose of the EEC directive is to establish common standards of poultry hygiene that are acceptable to all member countries. Their implementation will mean that poultry meat produced in any part of the Community can be sold in any other part without having to meet special additional veterinary certification and other conditions before it is allowed across the frontier. They will also enable our product to meet the hygiene standards increasingly being required in wider export markets. Such freedom of trade offers considerable advantages to an efficient poultry industry such as our own. I believe that the ability of our processors


to export any of the poultry meat they produce rather than have to arrange special export runs under ad hoc veterinary supervision inspection will greatly facilitate our export trade.
Inevitably, there is a price to pay for these benefits. The industry has estimated that to bring its buildings and equipment to the required standards will cost between £8 million and £12 million—nothing like the £30 million suggested by the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills). We are giving active consideration to its application for Exchequer assistance towards meeting these structural costs.
There will also be the cost of the veterinary-supervised hygiene inspection service—a subject on which there has been a great deal of wild speculation. We originally estimated this at £5½ million a year after 1979 or 0·4 pence a pound of poultry meat. The figure suggested by the hon. Gentleman was £10 million. But we now believe, in the light of consultation with the industry, local authorities and other representative bodies—and a great deal of consultation has taken place—that the net cost will be considerably lower, probably no more than 1p per bird. That is our official estimate. The figure of 12p is preposterous, as the British Poultry Federation would be the first to acknowledge.
We are continuing our discussions with industry representatives and with the local authority associations on the arrangement for phasing-in the inspection service over the next three years and hope to reach an outcome satisfactory to all.
Let us be clear about the cost of the poultry hygiene service. It is not the Government's intention that the district and metropolitan authorities, which will be responsible for operating this service, should be asked to meet any of the cost from the rates. They will be empowered to recover their full costs from inspection charges on the trade. I am sure it will be agreed that that is fair and reasonable. I have little doubt that the consumer would be willing to pay another 1p a bird to know that it has been officially inspected. I judge that costs consumers probably assume that, like red meat, their poultry is already officially inspected.
The hon. Gentleman suggested, I think when quoting from the Food Law Action

Group, that it might not be possible to recruit and train sufficient poultry meat inspectors in time to bring the new arrangements into operation on 1st January 1977. I agree that it will be difficult, but we are not expecting many poultry plants to request a service from that date, and, for those that do, we shall ask the local authorities to take a flexible attitude to manning levels while the inspection service is being phased in.
I turn to the question of New York-dressed poultry. Not surprisingly, given the hon. Gentleman's constituency interest, that was the area on which he concentrated most of his remarks. We have heard a great deal about this subject in recent months.
I should like to set out a few of the facts. The hon. Gentleman spoke of New York-dressed accounting for about 40 per cent. of the production in Devon. I would not dispute that. But New York-dressed, farm fresh or fresh plucked poultry, though still a significant part of the market, represents nothing like the 25 per cent. that is often claimed for it on a national basis, except at Christmas. We believe that over the year as a whole the proportion is about half that—about 12 per cent.
It is also wrong to imply—I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman did this, but I had the impression that he did—that New York-dressed is the only alternative to frozen poultry. In recent years there has been a considerable increase in fresh, chilled poultry which has been eviscerated in purpose-built plants rather than in food shops. We believe that the growth in sales of this type of fresh poultry will continue in the years ahead.
Thirdly, I know of no reliable evidence to support the claim that New York-dressed poultry is "safer" than frozen poultry. Some of the recent publicity on this score has been quite misleading.
New York-dressed poultry is a very varied commodity, ranging from birds grown specifically for the table to spent hens from egg-laying batteries. The scientific advice is that they cannot be properly inspected without an examination of the viscera, and such official examination is clearly impracticable when the viscera are drawn in a food shop. Moreover, most of us would surely agree that evisceration of any animal or bird


in a food shop is undesirable if it can be avoided.
This is the essential background to the hygiene arguments about the New York dressed trade and why the directives provide for the trade to be phased out, except for direct sales from producers to consumers. The directives allow a further five years for the trade through food shops to continue, though producers who are unable to market their poultry through an approved slaughterhouse will be confined to sales to local retail outlets after August 1977.
For many farmers, New York-dressed sales are essentially a local side-line; they will have five years to adjust. But I recognise that there are others who sell substantial quantities of poultry well beyond their own locality and who will be faced with the decision whether to find slaughterhouse facilities or to reduce ultimately to direct farm sales. I realise that this will be a hard decision for most of them to take, especially where the bulk of their production goes for the Christmas trade. I realise, too, that there will be supply difficulties over fresh poultry meat at Christmas that will not be anything like so acute at other times of the year, and for this reason we are giving further consideration to see if anything might be done for the Christmas trade.
In the time available I have tried to explain that the basic issue here is one of food hygiene. We should bear in

mind the recommendations of any responsible group of people who have looked at the meat industry in recent years—for example, the Verdon-Smith Committee, which reported in 1964 and unequivocally recommended that there should be veterinary-supervised official inspection of poultry slaughter houses. The Swann Committee more recently made that recommendation.
Therefore, we must face up to the fact that this is something that should have been done long ago. We estimate that it will cost about 1p per bird. I can understand the point of view of the members of the Food Law Action Group, and we are doing our best, in so far as it is consistent with our objectives, to meet the aspirations of the environmental health officers and everyone else who is interested in the matter. But the figures the group has bandied about are inaccurate. The hon. Gentleman might find that the British Poultry Federation, now that it has had a proper chance to consult us—and we have gone to considerable lengths—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nineteen minutes past Two o'clock.